mmmmKM 


a(Mmt(tnmi!tm!ftf»rt---^^'''^i*fi^''^f*'^^"'^ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
AT   LOS  ANGELES 


f  M^y-pio--r-u  llA-ir-i^^^<^ 


THE  I^TERNATIOML  SCIEiXTIFIC  SERIES 
VOLUME   LXVIII 


THE 

INTERNATIONAL  SCIENTIFIC  SERIES. 


Each  book  complete  in  One  Volume,  12mo,  and  bound  in  Cloth. 


1.  FORMS  OF  WATER :  A  Familiar  Exposition  of  the  Origin  and  Phenomena 

of  Glaciers.    By  J.  TrxDAix,  LL.  D.,  F.  R.  S.  With  25  lllastrations.    $1.50. 

2.  PHYSICS  ANT)  POLITICS;  Or,  Thoughts  on  the  Application  of  the  Prin- 

ciples of  "Natural  Selection"'  and  "Inheritance"  to  Political  Society. 
By  Walter  Bagehot.    $1.50. 

3.  FOODS.    By  Edward  Smith,  M.  D.,  LL.  B.,  F.  R.  S.    With  numerous  Illaa- 

trarions.    §1.75. 

4.  MIND  AND  BODY:  The  Theories  of  their  Relation.    By  Alexander  Bain, 

LL.  D.    With  4  Illustrations.    $1.50. 

6.  THE  STUDY  OF  SOCIOLOGY.    By  Herbert  Spencer.    $1.50. 

6.  THE  NEW  CHEMISTRY.    By  Professor  J.  P.  Cooke,  of  Harvard  Univer- 

sity.   With  31  Illustrations.    $2.00. 

7.  ON  THE  CONSERVATION  OF  ENERGY.    By  Balfour  Stewart,  M.  A., 

LL.D.,  F.  R.  S.    With  14  Illustrations.    $1.50. 

8.  .\NIMAL  LOCOMOTION;  or,  Walkin-r,  Swimming,  and  Flying.    By  J.  B. 

Pettiqrew,  M.  D.,  F.  R.  S.,  etc.    With  1.30  Illustrations.    SL'i'S. 

9.  RESPONSIBILITY  IN  MENTAL  DISEASE.    By  Henry  Maudslet,  M.D. 

$1.50.   " 

10.  THE  SCIENCE  OF  LAW.    By  Professor  Sheldon  Amos.    $1  75. 

11.  ANIMAL  MECHANISM:  A  Treatise  on  Terrestrial  and  Aerial  Locomotion. 

By  ProiVssaor  E.  J.  Maret.    With  117  Illustrations.    $1.75. 

12.  THE  HISTOKY  OK  THE  CONFLICT  BETWEEN   RELIGION  AND  SCI- 

ENCE.   By  J.  W.  Draper,  M.  D.,  LL.  D.     $1.7.5. 

13.  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  DESCENT  AND  DARWINISM.    By  Professor  Oscab 

Schmidt  (Sirasbnrg  University).     With  26  IllustralionR.    $1.50. 

14.  THE  CHEMICAL  EFFECTS  OF   LIGHT  AND  PHOTOGRAPHY.     By  Dr. 

IlBitMANN  VrxiEL  f  Polytechnic  Acadr-my  of  Berlin*.  Translation  thoroughly 
rerised.    Witb  100  Illusirationc    $2.00. 

15.  FUNGI:  Their  Natnro.  Influences,  Uses,  ftc.    By  M.  C.  ConKr,  M.  A..  T,L.  D. 

Edited  by  the  Kcv.  M.  J.  Berkeley,  M.  A.,  F.L.  S.    Wilh  109  Illustrations. 
11,50. 

16.  THE    LIFE   AND   GROWTH   OF    LANGUAGE.      By  Profeeeor  William 

DwioHT  W'nittizT,  of  Vale  College.    $1.60. 


New  Ywk  .    D.  APPLETON  A  CO.,  1.  8,  &  5  Bond  Street. 


The  International  Scientific  Series— (CoTitmned.) 


17.  MONEY  AND  THE   MECHANISM    OF   EXCHANGE.     By  W.  Stanley 

Jevo.ns,  M.  a.,  F.  R.  S.    $1.75. 

18.  THE  NATURE  OF  LIGHT,  with  a  General  Account  of  Physical  Optics.    By 

Dr.  Eugene  Lommel.    With  188  Hlustratious  and  a  Table  of  Spectra  iu 
Chromo-lithography.    $2.00. 

19.  ANIMAL  PAR.\SITES  AND  MESSMATES.    By  Monsieur  Van  Eeotden, 

Willi  83  Hlusttations.    $1.50. 

20.  FERMENTATION.    By  Professor  Schutzenbergek.    With  28  Hlustrations. 

$1.50. 

21.  THE  FIVE  SENSES  OF  MAN.    By  Professor  Beknstein.    With  91  Hlus- 

tratioDS.    §1.75. 

22.  THE  THEORY  OF  SOUND  IN  ITS  RELATION  TO  MUSIC.    By  Pro- 

fessor PiETRO  Blaserna.    With  numerous  Illustrations.    $1.S0. 

23.  STUDIES  m  SPECTRUM  ANALYSIS.    By  J.  Norman  Lockter,  F.  R.  S. 

With  6  Photographic  Hlustrations  of  Spectra,  and  numerous  £ugravin<7S 
on  Wood.    $2.50. 

24.  A  HISTORY  OF  THE  GROWTH  OP  THE  STEAM-ENGINE.    By  Pro- 

fessor R.  H.  Thurston.    With  163  Illustrations.    $2.50. 

25.  EDUCATION  AS  A  SCIENCE.    By  Alexander  Bain,  LL.D.    $1.75. 

26.  STUDENTS'  TEXT-BOOK  OP  COLOR;    Or,  Modem  Chromatics.    With 

Applications  to  Art  and  Industry.    By  Proressor  Ogden  N.  Rood,  Cohim- 
hia  College.    New  edition.    With  130  Illustrations.    $2.00. 

27.  THE  HUMAN  SPECIES.    By  Professor  A.  db  Quatwefageb,  Membra  de 

rinstitut.    $2.00. 

28.  THE  CRAYFISH  :    An  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  ZoOlogy.     By  T.  H. 

Huxley,  P.  R.  S.    With  82  Illustrations.    $1.75. 

29.  THE    ATOMIC   THEORY.     By  Professor  A.  Wurtz.     Translated  by  E- 

Cleminshaw,  F.  0.  S.    $1.50. 

30.  ANIMAL  LIFE  AS  AFFECTED  BY  THE  NATURAL  CONDITIONS  OF 

EXISTENCE.    By  Karl  Semper.   With  2  Maps  and  106  Woodcuts.   $2.C0. 

31.  SIGHT  :  An  Exposition  of  the  Principles  of  Monocnlnrand  Binocular  Vision. 

By  Joseph  Le  CoNTE,  LL.  D.    With  132  Illustrations.    $1.50. 

32.  GENERAL  PHYSIOT  OGY  OF  MUSCLES  AND  NERVES.    By  Professor 

J  Rosenthal.    With  75  Illustrations.    $1.50. 

33.  ILLUSIONS:  A  Psychological  Study.    By  James  Sully.    $1.50. 

84.  THE  SUN.    By  C.  A.  Young.  Professor  of  Astronomy  in  the  College  of  New 
Jersey.    With  numerous  Illustrations.    $2.00. 


New  York  :  D.  APPLETON  &  CO.,  1,  3,  &  5  Bond  Street- 


The  International  Scientific  5en<a— (Continued.) 


35.  VOLCANOES :  What  they  Are  and  what  they  Teach.    By  John  W.  Judd, 

F.  R.  S.,  Professor  of  Geology  in  the  Koyal  School  of  Minee.    With  96  Il- 
lustrations.   $2.00. 

36.  SUICIDE:    An  Essay  in  Comparative  Moral  Statistics.    By  Henet  Moe- 

SELLi,   M.D.,   Prolt-ssor    of   Psychological    Medicine,  Royal   University, 
Turin.    $1.75. 

37.  THE  FORMATION  OF  VEGETABLE  MOULD,  THROUGH  THE  AC- 

TION OF  WOKMS.  With  Obsurvations  ou  their  Habits.  By  Charles 
Dabwin,  LL.  D.,  F.  R.  S.     With  lllustraiious.    $1.50. 

38.  THE  CONCEPTS  AND   THEORIES   OF  MODERN   PHYSICS.    By  J.  B. 

Stai,lo.    |1  .75. 

39.  THE  BRAIN  AND  ITS  FUNCTIONS.     By  J.  Ldts.    S1.50. 

40.  MYTH  AND  SCIENCE.    By  Tito  Vignoli.    $1.50. 

41.  DISE.\SES  OF  MEMORY:   An  Essay  in  the  Positive  Psychology.    By  Th. 

RiBOT,  author  of  "  Heredity."     $1.50. 

42.  ANTS.  BEES.  AND  WASPS.     A  Record  of  Obsorvations  of  the  Habits  of 

the  Social  Hymenoptera.  By  Sir  John  Lubbock,  Bart.,  F.  R.  S.,  D.  C.  L., 
LL.  D.,  etc.    $2.00. 

43.  SCIENCE  OF  POLITICS.     By  Sheldon  Amop.    «1.75. 

44.  ANIMAL  INTELLIGENCE.    By  George  J.  Romanes.    $1.75. 

45.  MAN  BEFORE  METALS.     By  N.  Jolt,  Correspondent  of  the  Institute. 

With  148  Illustrations.    $1.75. 

46.  THE    ORG.\NS    OF    SPFE"^  H    AND    THFIR    APPLTCATION    IN    THE 

FOR.M.VnoX  OF  ART1CUL.\TE  SOUNDS.  By  G.  H  von  Mevkt!,  Pro- 
fessor in  Ordinary  of  Anatomy  at  the  University  of  Zurich.  With  47 
Woodcuts.    81.75. 

47.  F.\LL\CIES:    A  View  of  Logic  from   the  Practical  Side.      By  Alfred 

SiDGWicK,  B.  A.,  Oxon.    %\.'i5. 

48.  ORIGIN  OF  CULTIVATED  PLANTS.     By  ALpnoNBE  de  Candolle.   $2.00. 

49.  JELT.Y-Fisn.  STAR-FISH,  AND   SEA-URrHINS.    Bcin?  a  RcBcarch  on 

Primitive  Nervous  Systems.     By  George  J.  Romanes.    $1.75. 

60.  THE  COMMON  SENSE  OF  THE  EXACT  SCIENCES.    By  the  late  Will- 

iam KiNODON  Clippord.     «!  50. 

61.  PHYSIC.XL  EXPRESSION:   lis  Modes  and  Principl'^s.    By  Francis  War- 

ner, .M.  D.,  Asi<istflnt  PhyHicifln.  and  Lecturer  on  Botany  to  the  London 
Hospital,  etc.     With  51  Illustrations.    ^A.ITy. 

S2.  ANTHROPOID  APES.    P.y  Robkrt  IT  a  htmann.  Professor  In  the  University 
of  Berlin.     With  03  Illnstrations.    $1.7.5. 


New  York:  D.  APPLETON  &  CO.,  1,  8,  &  5  Bond  Street. 


The  International  Scientific  iS«m«— (Continued.) 


63.  THE  MAMMALIA  IN  THEIR  RELATION  TO  PRIMEVAL  TIMES.    By 
Oscar  Schmidt.    §1.50. 

54.  COMPARATIVE    LITERATURE.      I'.y  Hutcheson  Macaulay  Posnett, 

M.  A.,  LL.  D.,  F.  L.  S.,  Barrister-at-Law  ;  Professor  of  Classics  and  Englisli 
Liteiafure,  University  College,  Auckland,  New  Zealand;  author  of  "The 
Historical  Method,"  etc.    $1.75. 

55.  EARTHQUAKES  AND  OTHER  EARTH  MOVEMENTS.    By  John  Milne, 

Professor  of  Mining  and  Qeolosy  in  the  Imperial  College  of  Engineering, 
Tokio,  Japan.    With  38  Figures.    $1.75. 

56.  MICROBES,  FERMENTS,  AND  MOULDS.    By  E.  L.  Trouessart.    With 

107  Illustrations.    $1.50. 

57.  THE  GEOGRAPHICAL  AND  GEOLOGICAL  DISTRIBUTION  OP  ANI- 

MALS.   By  Angelo  Heilpbin.    $2.00. 

58.  WEATHER.    A  Popular  Exposition  of  the  Nature  of  Weather  Changes  from 

Day  to  Day.    With  Diagrams.    By  Hon.  Ralph  Abercromby.    $1.75. 

59.  ANIMAL  MAGNETISM.    By  Alfhed  Binet  and  Charles  Fere,  Assistant 

Physician  at  the  Salpetriere.    $1.50. 

60.  INTERNATIONAL  LAW,  with  Materials  for  a  Code  of  International  Law. 

By  Leone  Levi,  Professor  of  Common  Law,  King's  College.    $1.50. 

61.  THE    GEOLOGICAL    HISTORY  OF  PLANTS.     With  lUustrations.     By 

Sir  J.  William  Dawson,  LL.  D.,  F.  R.  S.    $1.75. 

62.  ANTHROPOLOGY.    An  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Man  and  Civilization. 

By  Edward  B.  Ttlor,  D.  C.  L.,  F.  R.  S.    Illustrated.    $2.00. 

63.  THE  ORIGIN  OF  FLORAL  STRUCTURES,  THROUGH  INSECT  AND 

OTHER   AGENCIES.      By  the  Rev.  George  Henslow,  M.  A.,  F.  L.  S., 

F.  G.  S.    With  88  Illustrations.    $1.75. 

64.  ON  THE  SENSES,  INSTINCTS,  AND  INTELLIGENCE  OF  ANIMALS, 

WITH  SPECIAL  REFERENCE  TO  INSECTS.  By  Sir  John  Lubbock. 
With  over  100  Illustrations.    $1.75. 

65.  THE    PRIMITIVE    FAMILY    IN  ITS   ORIGIN    AND    DEVELOPMENT. 

By  Dr.  C.  N.  Starcke,  of  the  University  of  Copenhagen.    $1.75. 

66.  PHYSIOLOGY  OF  BODILY  EXERCISE.     By  Feenand  Lageange,  M.  D. 

$1.T5. 

G7.  THE  COLOURS  OF  ANIMALS:    Their  Meaning  and  Use.     By  Edward 
Bagnall  Poulton,  F.  R.  8.    $1.75. 


THE   INTERNATIONAL   SCIENTIFIC  SERIES 


SOCIALISM 


NEW  AND   OLD 


BY 


WILLIAM  GKAHAM,  M.A. 

niOFESSOR  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY   AND  JURISPRUDENCE, 
queen's  college,   BELFAST 


NEW    YORK 
D.    APPLETON    AND    COMPANY 

1891 


Authorized  Edition. 


■  <■<■  « 

*      c  • 


N° 


PREFACE. 


In  a  former  work  written  by  the  author,  entitled 
"  The  Social  Problem,"  the  various  forms  of  existing 
Socialism  were  briefly  considered  as  proffered  solu- 
tions of  the  Social  Problem  In  the  present  work 
the  whole  subject  of  Socialism  is  considered  more 
fully  (especially  from  the  historical  and  economic 
side)  tnan  the  scope  of  the  former  work  allowed. 
The  book  is  thus  a  new  and  independent  work  ; 
though  in  the  chapters  on  "  Practicable  State- 
Socialism  "  the  reader  of  the  present  volume  who 
may  by  chance  have  read  the  former  one,  may 
observe  a  certain  similarity  in  the  conclusions 
reached,  as  compared  with  those  in  a  chapter  of  the 
earlier  work  dealing  with  specific  social  remedies. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  may  note  a  greater  dcfinite- 
ness  in  the  statement  of  certain  conclusions,  and 
possibly  even — a  difference  of  a  more  essential  kind — 
a  qualification  of  some   of  the  results   formerly  set 


S13465 


VI  PREFACE. 

forth.  Where  there  is  really  such  a  difference— as  to 
some,  though  not  to  a  considerable  extent  there  is — 
the  conclusions  here  given  are  to  be  taken  as  the 
author's  more  matured  opinion  on  the  subject. 

I  have  to  express  my  thanks  to  Mr.  Goddard  H. 
Orpen,  of  Lincoln's  Inn,  for  his  careful  reading  of  the 
proofs  while  passing  through  the  press,  as  vi^ell  as 
for  suggestions  and  criticisms  which  assisted  me  to 
make  improvements  in  particular  parts  of  the  book. 

London,  yW/y  29,  1890. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Introduction xix-lv 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE   FORMS  OF   SOCIALISM. 

SECT. 

I.  The  dififerent  senses  of  the  word   Socialism,  and  rela- 

tion between  the  different  kinds  of  Socialists     .         .     i- 

II.  Further  division  (according  to  the  means  proposed 
of  realizing  their  ideals)  into  the  Revolutionary, 
Evolutionary,  and  State-Socialists.  Prospects  of 
Socialism  in  the  leading  civilized  countries — England, 
France,  Germany,  and  the  United  States  .         .   11-17 

III.  Anarchism,  and  its  relation  to  Socialism:  points  of 
agreement  and  difference.     Why  some  knowledge  of 

the  history  of  Socialism  is  desirable  ....  17-20 


CHAPTER  II. 

SOCIALISM    BEFORE  THE   NINETEENTH   CENTURY. 

I.  The  Jewish  .Socialism.     Socialistic  institutions  of  the 

Law  of  Moses — The  Jubilee,  &c.  Failure  of  the 
Jewish  Socialistic  polity.  Retardation  of  the  chancre 
to  individualism  by  the  Law  of  Moses  and  the 
Prophets.  The  Socialism  of  the  Gospels.  The  ideal 
of  the  Christian  Society 21-27 

II.  The   Catholic  Church  and   Communism.     Gradation 

of  classes  under  Feudalism.     Risings  of  the  "com- 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

SECT.  PAGE 

monalty  "  after  the  decline  of  feudalism.  The  risings 
of  the  people  in  England  to  prevent  their  divorce 
from  the  land.  Increase  of  the  poor  and  institution 
of  Poor  Laws.  IVI ore's  Utopia.  Anticipation  in  it 
of  the  modern  Socialist  argument.  The  age  of 
social  Utopias 27-33 

III.  Decline  in  the  production  of  Utopias.  The  new 
problem  for  social  philosophers — The  Origin  of  Civil 
Society  and  Government.  Hobbes'  and  Locke's 
speculations.  What  constitutes  private  property 
according  to  each.  Effects  of  their  writings  on 
English  society  and  subsequent  social  speculation. 
The  struggle  for  Monarchy  in  England  throughout 
the  seventeenth  century.  Political  effects  of  the  limi- 
tation of  the  kingly  authority.  Social  and  economic 
effects.  Decline  of  yeomen  and  rise  of  the  farming 
class.     The  agricultural  labourer        ....  33-39 

IV.  New  era  in  the  history  of  Society  inaugurated  by 
the  writings  of  Rousseau.  His  "  Discours  sur 
rOrigine  de  ITnegalite."  His  story  of  the  "  fall  of 
man  "  socially  and  morally.  Stages  in  the  early  his- 
tory of  man.  The  happy  stage  at  which  the  species 
should  have  stopped.  The  origin  of  private  property. 
The  evil  world  and  the  evil  passions  that  came 
with  private  property.  The  war  of  all  with 
all.  Origin  of  Civil  Society  and  Law.  Trans- 
formation of  delegated  into  absolute  authority. 
The  sole  way  of  recovery,  as  indicated  in  the 
"  Contrat  Social.''  The  people  the  only  legitimate 
sovereign  in  the  state.  The  proper  aims  of  Govern- 
ment. How  to  retain  the  sovereign  power  in  the 
hands  of  the  people.  Far-reaching  consequences  of 
Rousseau's  writings.     Errors  and  truth  in  them        .  39-59 

V.  How  far  Rousseau  was  a  Socialist.  The  doctrine  of 
the  "Economic  Politique''  favours  what  we  now  call 
State-Socialis2n,  to  be  secured  by  taxation  and  the 
extension  of  the  State's  functions       .         .         >         .  59-64 

VI.  Theories  due  to  the  influence  of  Rousseau's  ideas. 
Mably's  Communism.  Fichte's  Collectivism,  an 
anticipation  of  t'.e  present  collectivist  system. 
Bakunin's  Anarchism.  Morellet's  Communism  ;  its 
affinity  with  existing  Collectivism.  The  French 
Revolution  partly  Socialistic  in  its  effects  .        .         .64.-71 


CONTENTS.  IX 

CHAPTER    III. 
MODERN  SOCIALISM,   FROM  ST.   SIMOJ?  TO   KARL  MARX. 

SECT.  PAGB 

I.  St.    Simon  :     his   originality:     successive   phases    of 

his  ideas.  His  Positivist  stage.  His  State  Social- 
ism, with  the  right  to  labour  and  the  right  to 
knowledge  guaranteed  to  the  labourer.  Further 
advance  :  a  new  morality  necessary,  to  be  supplied 
by  positive  philosophers ;  and  a  new  religion,  to  be 
preached  by  philanthropists.  The  "  New  Chris- 
tianity."' Its  principal  aim  the  amelioration  of  the 
lot  of  the  poor 72-78 

II.  The  St.  Simonian  school.     Advance  on  the  views  of 

the  Master.  The  three  stages  in  the  exploitation  of 
man  by  his  fellows.  A  radical  reform  declared  to  be 
necessary  in  the  laws  of  Property  and  Inheritance. 
Their  principle  of  distribution: — to  each  according 
to  his  works.  Views  on  Rent  :  on  Capital.  Antici- 
pation of  special  positions  of  the  present  Collec- 
tivists.  Insight  of  the  St.  Simonians  :  merits  and 
defects  of  their  ideal :  specific  objections  .         .  78-87 

III.  Carlyle's  Socialism.  Resemblance  between  his  social 
and  political  doctrine  and  ihe  St.  Simonian  Social- 
ism. Ideas  in  common  with  the  St.  Simonians 
in  "  Sartor  Resartus "  and  "  Past  and  Present." 
The  doctrine  of  the  '"  Latter  Day  Pamphlets.'' 
Way  to  tiie  desired  end  according  to  Carlyle  : — The 
"  Great  Man  ''  seconded  by  an  aristocracy  of  ability. 
Similar  doctrine  in  Lord  Beaconsfield's  political 
novels  of  "  Sybil  ;  or  the  Two  Nations,"  and 
"Coningsby" 87-98 

IV.  New  Socialistic  scheme  of  Fourier :  Not  State- 
Socialism.  The  p/ialan(^c  and  the  phi/ajis/ere. 
Fourier's  principle  of  distribution.  Mill's  eulogy 
of  Fourier's  scheme :    his  criticism  of  it.     Possible 

case  for  an  expermient  on  Fourier's  lines  .         .  98-105 

V.  Louis  Blanc's  objection  to  St.  .Simonism.  His  own 
scheme  of  co-operative  production  to  be  launched 
by  the  aid  of  tlie  .State,  i)ut  afterwards  to  be  free  from  . 
State  control.  Competition  to  be  employed  to  get 
rid  of  the  present  system,  afterwards  to  be  done  away 
with.  Tendency  of  the  scheme  to  Communism, 
lis  failure  so  far  as  partially  tried      .         ,         .        106-115 


X.  CONTENTS. 

SKCT.  PAGE 

VI.  J.  S.  Mill  and  his  attitude  to  Socialism,  as  gathered 
from  his  "  Principles  of  Political  Economy,''  his 
''  Chapters  on  Socialism  "  {Fortnightly  Review)  and 
his  "  Autobiography."  His  general  ideal  of  the 
future  society.  Ideal  in  the  sphere  of  industry  ;  Co- 
operative production,  realized  without  State  aid.  His 
prophecy  in  1848.  Why  co-operative  production  has 
not  succeeded.  Great  extension  and  development 
of  the  opposite  system  of  capitalism  since  that  time. 
Cairnes'  error  as  to  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  co- 
operative production.  Supplementary  note  on 
Robert  Owen's  relation  to  Socialism  and  co-opera- 
tive production  1 15-124 


CHAPTER  IV. 
THE  NEW  SOCIALISM  AND   ITS  ARGUMENT. 

I.  The   third  Socialist  crusade  preached  by    Lassalle : 

the  inspiration  derived  from  Karl  Marx.  Improved 
method  of  attack  on  the  existing  system.  Marx's 
economical  and  historical  arguments.  Theii 
guns  turned  on  the  orthodox  economists.  Commun- 
istic point  of  departure  of  Marx :  the  subsequent 
changes  in  his  ideas  and  methods     .         .         .        125-131 

II.  The  new  Socialism  (Collectivism)  and  its  aims:  why 

it  deserves  special  attention.  Marx's  three  stages 
in  the  history  of  industry.  The  appearance  of  the 
capitalist  and  origin  of  capital.  Stages  before  the 
Industrial  Revolution.  The  Industrial  Revolution: 
its  causes  and  results.  Completion  of  the  revolu- 
tion            131-13S 

III.  Marx's  theory  of  value  derived  from  Ricardo.  His 
own  theory  of  "surplus  value."  Fallacy  of  the 
arguments  in  support  of  the  theory.  The  appeal  to 
morals.  Element  of  truth  in  the  charges  of  Marx 
against  the  capitalist  employers  in  the  past       .         138-151 


CHAPTER  V. 
IN   THE    SOCIALIST  STATE. 

I.  General  outline  of  the  Collectivist  scheme  from  the 


CONTENTS.  XI 


SECT. 


PAGB 


economic  point  of  view.     Production,  distribution, 

and  value  .         » •        1 52-161 

II.  Statement  and  examination  of  the  chief  objections 
ur^ed  against  the  scheme:  (i)  that  production 
would  be  controlled  by  authority  instead  of  by  the 
desires  and  demands  of  the  community  ;  (2)  that 
production  would  be  diminished  from  the  with- 
drawal of  the  present  stimulus  to  the  director  of  in- 
dustry (entrepeneur);  (3)  that  capital,  especially  fixed 
capital,  would  not  be  furnished  in  sufficient  amount ; 
(4)  that  liberty  would  be  in  danger ;  (5)  that  indi- 
viduality of  character  would  be  repressed ;  (6)  that 
culture  would  be  endangered     ....        162-182 


CHAPTER  VI 

IN  THE  SOCIALIST  STATE  {continued). 

THE   DISTRIBUTION    OF   WEALTH. 

I.  Importance  of  the  question  of  distribution  in  its  rela- 

tion to  Sociali  m.  The  existing  system.  On  what  the 
future  of  collectivism  depends.  Collectivist  objection 
10  the  present  system.  The  proposed  principle  of 
distribution  : — "  To  each  in  proportion  to  his  hours  of 
average  labour.''  (ieneral  difficulty  of  applying  the 
principle.  Difficulty  illustrated  concretely  in  the  case 
of  the  cotton  industry.  Marx's  standard  of  average 
or  common  labour  uncertain  and  indefinite.  Diffi- 
culty of  reducing  ditierent  kinds  of  skilled  labour  to 
the  standard 184-196 

II.  Examination    and   refutation  of  Marx's  theory  that 

skilled  labour  is  common  labour  intensified  or  multi- 
plied. Importance  of  the  theory  in  connection  with 
the  collectivist  principle  of  distribution.  True  reason 
why  the  skilled  should  receive  a  larger  remuneration 
than  the  unskilled  labourer.  Why,  in  particular,  the 
industrial  chief,  the  inventor,  &c.,  should  be  liberally 
remunerated  .......     196-204 

III.  Further  examination  of  the  Socialist  theory  of  value 
and  principle  of  distribution.  Objections:  diminished 
stimulus  to  labour  on  the  part  of  the  generality. 
Impossibility  of  keeping  values  fixed  as  required  by 


Xll  CONTENTS. 

SECT.  PAGE 

the  scheme.  Foreign  trade  under  Collectivism. 
Difficulties  of  carrying  it  on  in  the  absence  of  the 
money  measure  of  values.  Difficulty  of  keeping 
values  of  foreign  commodities  fixed      .         .         .     204-212 

IV.  Final  conclusion   as   to   the    Socialist   principle   of 

distribution  ........     212-215 


CHAPTER  VII. 

IN  THE  SOCIALIST  STATE  {continued). 

THE    SUPPRESSION   OF   MONEY  AND   MARKETS. 

I.  How  far  the  abolition  of  money  proposed  by  the  col- 

lectivists  is  possible.  The  labour  cheques  would 
take  the  place  of  money  :  Would  be  subject  to 
all  the  evilsof  inconvertible  paper-money,  with  other 
unknown  evils.  Impossibility  of  suppressing  market 
values  and  speculation  under  Socialism.  Probable 
increase  of  speculation  in  worse  forms  than  at 
present.  Cures  for  the  present  evils  connected  with 
the  fluctuations  of  values.  Difficulties  of  applying 
remedies,  especially  in  the  case  of  fraudulent  finan- 
cing and  "  company  floating  "      ....     216-228 

II.  The  recent  increase  in  the  formation  of  companies 
and  syndicates.     Significance  of  the   syndicates  as 

a  possible  stage  in  the  direction  of  Socialism.     Why     . 

a  general  syndicate  occupation  of  the  field  of  business 

and  industry  is  unlikely  for  a  long  time  yet .         .     228-234 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

IN  THE  SOCIALIST  STATE   [concluded). 

UNPRODUCTIVE  LABOURERS.   THE  CHURCH  AND  THE 
GOVERNMENT. 

How  far  certain  kinds  of  unproductive  labourers  of  the 
less  skilled  sort  might  be  enrolled  under  service  of 
the  State.  Inconvenience  of  suppressing  domestic 
servants  and  substituting  for  them  public  function- 
aries as  proposed  by  the  Socialists.    I'he  Professions 


CONTENTS.  xiii 


SECT.  PAGE 

under  Socialism.  Individuals  with  special  skill  in 
much  request  must  be  permitted  to  reap  the  natural 
rewards  of  it.  Examples:  the  physician,  the  advocate, 
the  artist,  &c.  The  teaching  service,  like  the  civil 
and  the  military  service,  might  fit  into  Socialism 
without  great  change 235-241 

II.  Possible  position  of  Men  of  Letters  and  of 
Philosophers  under  Socialism.  Importance  of  the 
functions  of  the  latter  in  modern  society.  The 
Philosophers  and  Socialism.  The  Church  and 
Socialism       ........     242-249 

III.  The  Government  under  Socialism.  Reticence  of 
Socialist  authorities  on  this  topic.  Mode  in  which 
superiors  are  to  be  selected.  A  complete  political 
revolution  implied,  as  well  as  a  social  and  economi- 
cal one.     How  far  a  violent  revolution  would  be  likely 

to  further  the  Socialist  programme      .         .         .     250-257 

IV.  Final  pronouncement  on  Collectivism.  True  course 
for  the  working  class,  their  friends,  and  all  the  dis- 
contented under  the  present  order       .         .         .     257-266 


CHAPTER  IX. 

PRACTICABLE   STATE  SOCIALIS.M  -.—{/l)   LEGISLATIVE,  \ 

I.  The  case  of  the  Socialists,  so  far  as  real,  and  what 

makes  its  strength.     The  supporters  of  Socialism    267-272 

II.  Co-operative  production.     Where  it  might  succeed. 

How  far  likely  to  be  a  solution  of  the  Capital  and 
Labour  question.  Difficulties  in  the  way  of  success. 
State  assistance  under  certain  conditions  to  associa- 
tions of  labourers  might  be  tried  as  an  experiment. 
Best  modes  of  composing  the  difference  between 
Capital  and  Labour  at  the  present  time        .         .     272-282 

III.  The  Land  Question.  In  England  the  creation  of 
small  holdings  should  be  aimed  at,  also  allotments 
to  agricultural  and  other  labourers  ;  also  the  buying 
out  by  the  municipalities  of  the  speculative  holders 
of  land  in  or  near  the  large  towns.  How  far 
a    certain    kind    of   limited    but    healthy    .Sorialism 


xiv  CONTENTS. 

SECT.  PAGE 

might  be  promoted  by  the  local  governing  authori- 
ties             283-288 

IV.  How  to  provide  greater  equality  of  chances  to  ability 
in  the  lower  social  grades.  Importance  of  this  kind 
of  Socialism,  which  is  also  the  most  practicable. 
Reasons  in  favour  of  it 288-297 

V.  The  taxation  of  inheritances.     Justice  of  the  public 

claim  to  part  of  inheritances.  How  most  appro- 
priately to  apply  the  funds  raised.  Mill's  more 
extreme  proposal.  Probable  results  of  it.  The  in- 
crease should  be  gradual,  and  should  not  go  much 
ahead  of  the  general  sentiment  or  set  of  opinion. 
Postulates  moral  improvement  in  individuals  to  make 
it  effective 297-308 

VI.  The  unemployed  labourers.  Importance  of  knowing 
how  to  deal  with  the  question.  Explanation  of  the 
increased  number  of  the  unemployed  in  recent  times. 
Possible  remedies  for  unemployed  labour     .         .     308-320 

VII.  The  Right  to  Labour.  Consequences  of  conceding 
the  right  according  to  Mill.  His  conclusions  not 
accepted  by  certain  social  thinkers.  Reasons  why  the 
right  to  labour  cannot  be  guaranteed  by  the  State 
under  the  existing  organization  of  industry  .         .    321-326 


CHAPTER  X. 

ON  SOME  PROPOSED   REMEDIES   FOR  LOW  WAGES  AND 
UNEMPLOYED   LABOUR. 

I.  A  minimum  wage  to  be  fixed,  (i)  by  authority  ;  (2)  by 

labourers  themselves  through  Trades  Unions.  Con- 
sequences of  the  first  proposal.  How  far  the  second 
course  would  be  beneficial  to  the  labourers.  On 
what  the  wages  of  common  labour  depend  .         .     327-332 

II.  The  classical  economists'  doctrine  of  an   "average 

rate  of  wages."  Objections  to  Mill's  method  of 
determining  the  average  rate  by  the  Wage  Fund 
theory.  His  remedies  for  low  wages  as  based 
on  that  theory.  Why  wages  have  not  fallen  but 
risen,    though    population    has     greatly    increased 


CONTENTS.  XV 

SECT.  PACK 

since  Mill  wrote.  With  general  free-trade  or  free 
foreign  markets  our  population  might  indefinitely 
increase  without  wages  being  reduced.  Cairnes' 
amended  statement  of  the  Wages  Fund  theory. 
His  conclusions  from  it  as  respects  the  future  of 
the  labouring  classes.  Inconvenient  consequences 
of  his  reasoning  respecting  an  "  average  rate  of 
wages."  Criticism  of  his  reasoning.  His  mistake 
as  to  the  comparative  shares  of  the  landlords, 
capitalists,  and  the  labouring  classes.  His  reasons 
why  the  share  of  the  latter  has  not  increased 
in  a  greater  proportion.  His  conclusions  compared 
with  those  of  Mr.  Giffen,  as  based  on  statistics. 
Remedies  on  the  economical  side  for  low  wages. 
On  the  moral  side.  What  the  labourers  themselves 
can  do  to  raise  their  condition.  What  the  State 
can  do.  Complete  Socialism  a  doubtful  remedy  for 
the  low  wages  of  unskilled  labour         .         .         .     332  -342 

III.  The  class  of  casual  labourers,  and  the  residuum. 
Great  difficulty  of  raising  their  condition,  though 
their  numbers  may  be  reduced.  How  far  Socialism 
could  deal  with  such  lowest  classes.  As  now  con- 
stituted their  members  would  probably  prefer  the 
present  system  to  Socialism  ....     342-346 

IV.  Confirmation  of  the  conclusions  reached  by  the  ex- 
amination of  some  proposed  rem.edies.  (i)  That  of 
Mr.  Mills  for  unemployed  labourers.      Statement  of 

the  plan.     Objections 34t>-353 

V.  (2)  Mr.  Charles  Booth's  remedy  for  unemployed  and 

ill-paid  labourers.  Objections  :  Without  compul- 
sion, moral  or  physical,  the  plan  would  not  work. 
Injustice  as  well  as  impolicy  of  compulsion.  Cost- 
liness of  the  experiment.  Probable  good  etfects  on 
the  classes  just  above 353-362 


CHAPTER  XI. 

AN   EIGHT   HOURS'   WORKING   DAY. 

I.  Effects  of   the    legal    limitation   of  the  working  day. 
Assumption    in    the  argument  that   the  amount    of 


XVI  CONTENTS. 

SECT.  _  PAGB 

work  required  by  society  is  a  fixed  or  constant 
quantity :  how  far  true.  Probable  results  as  re- 
gards our  staple  industries,  especially  those  in 
which  we  compete  with  foreign  nations.  Examina- 
tion of  the  "  double  shift "  argument  in  favour 
of  an  eight  hours'  day.  Probable  general  result 
of  the  system  if  practicable.  How  far  the  objec- 
tions to  an  eight  hours'  day  would  be  removed 
by  an  international  understanding  between  our  Go- 
vernment and  the  Governments  of  competing  coun- 
tries            362-369 

II.  In  what  kinds  of  industries  the  reduction  might  be 
accepted  without  resulting  in  loss  to  employers  and 
with  benefit  to  the  unemployed.  Effect  on  other 
labourers  in  those  cases,  where  only  the  State  should 
interfere.  Probable  gain  by  the  reduction  of  hours 
in  the  mining  industry  :  as  also  in  shops.  Other 
industries  where  hours  are  too  long.  Effects  of 
reduction  in  these  cases.     Recapitulation    .         .     369-376 


CHAPTER  XII. 

PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM  :  — (-ff)  ADMINISTRATIVE. 

I.  Tendency  of  the  State  to  extend  its  functions  in  the 

industrial  sphere.  In  what  direction  such  extension 
might  be  advantageous.  Advantages  as  respects 
the  State  purchase  and  working  of  the  railways. 
Reasons  why  any  extension  of  Government  manage- 
ment should  be  slowly  and  tentatively  made.  Why 
.mining  industry  is  nevertheless  specially  suitable 
ifor  Government  management.  Production  and 
distribution  in  general  should  be  left  to  private 
enterprise.      Exceptions  to  this   ....     377-385 

II.  Why  agricultural  industry  leaves  no  room  for  State 

enterprise  or  for  co-operative  farming  as  proposed 
by  the  Socialists,  though  there  may  be  room  for  the 
older  agrarian  Socialism  aiming  at  the  diffusion  of 
landed  property 385-388 

III.  The  school  of  Laissez-faire.  The  social  and  political 
ideal  of  Herbert  Spencer.  The  perfect  social  state 
of  the  far  future.     Conditions  of  attaining  it.     Objec- 


CONTENTS.  XVll 

SECT.  PASS 

lions  to  Mr.  Spencer's  doctrine  of  non-interference  : 
It  ignores  the  fact  that  there  is  a  Social  Question, or 
implies  that  the  Government  should  let  it  alone. 
Logical  consequences  of  complete  non-interference  : 
would  leave  no  room  for  the  operation  of  his  own  prin- 
ciple of  distribution.  The  State  interference  of  recent 
years  just,  as  well  as  necessary.  The  Government 
inspector  a  product  of  social  evolution.  Probable 
results  had  there  been  no  State  interference.  Inter- 
ference a  practical,  as  well  as  logical,  consequence  of 
the  "  Law  of  Equal  Freedom."  Answer  to  the  objec- 
tion that  Socialism  lies  at  the  end  of  recent  Govern- 
ment interferences 388-400 


CHAPTER  XIII. 
THE  SUPPOSED  SPONTANEOUS  TENDENCIES  TO  SOCI.\LISM. 

I.  Statement  of  the  two  principal  supposed  tendencies  — 

Extension  of  the  State's  functions,  and  the  increasing 
concentration  of  capital.  Mistake  of  Karl  Marx  and 
other  philosophers  as  to  the  second  tendency.  It  is 
not  a  tendency  to  concentration  in  few  hands,  but  to 
concentration  of  capital  belonging  to  many  for  a 
common  purpose 401-406 

II.  Difficulties  that  this  peculiar  concentration  of  capital 

places  in  the  way  of  Socialism.  Under  what  con- 
ditiims  the  spread  of  companies  and  syndicates 
might  lead  to  an  extension  of  State  Socialism. 
Reasons  why  these  conditions  are  not  likely  to  be 
largely  or  early  realized         .....     407-409 

III.  The  tendency  to  co-operative  effort  on  the  part  of 
labinirers.  Its  relation  to  .Socialism.  The  tentkiicy 
slower  than  that  lo  the  concentration  of  capital,  but 
the  .State  might  restrain  tlie  latter  and  aid  the  former. 
The  future  political  action  of  the  working  classes 
not  easily  forecast,  especially  as  the  interests  of  the 
different  kinds  of  labourers  are  not  identical         .     410  411 

IV.  Possible  social  goals  in  the  future,  according  to  emi- 
nent writers,  eg.  Karl  Marx,  Ue  Tocquevillc,  Comic, 


Xviii  CONTENTS. 

SECT.  PAf^B 

Herbert  Spencer,  Mill,  St.  Simon,  Carlyle.  True 
lesson  to  be  gathered  from  the  different  forecasts  of 
the  social  philosophers  and  prophets  ; — the  danger  of 
specific  prophecy.  Faith  to  be  derived  ; — that  we  are 
in  a  progress  to  something  better.  But  co-operative 
human  efforts  will  be  necessary   ....     411-416 


INTRODUCTION. 


I. 

The  object  of  this  book  is  in  the  first  place  to  give 
an  account  of  contemporary  SociaHsm,  its  forms  and 
aims,  its  origins,  and  the  causes  of  its  appearance  and 
spread  ;  secondly,  to  examine  how  far,  taking  the  most 
reasonable  form  of  it,  it  is  desirable  or  practicable  ; 
thirdly,  to  set  forth  certain  measures  of  a  socialistic 
character  that  would  seem  both  beneficial  and  neces- 
sary as  supplements  to  the  present  system,  to  adopt 
which  there  is  a  spontaneous  tendency  on  the  part  of 
the  State,  and  to  which  the  course  of  the  industrial 
and  social  evolution  seems  to  point. 

I  have  devoted  a  certain  space  to  the  history 
of  Socialism,  in  order  not  only  to  explain  the  parti- 
cular forms  it  now  assumes,  but  also  to  show  that  in  its 
essence  it  is  no  new  thing  ;  that  it  has  frequently  ap- 
peared before,  and  has  always  been  produced  by  like 
causes  ;  that  in  its  most  frequent  and  recurrent  form 
of  communism  the  universal  human  experience  has 
rejected  it  as  unsuitcd  to  average  human  nature, 
though  in  primitive  times  groups  of  kindred  in  village 
communities  were  general  ;  that  where  any  species 
of  Socialism  has  been  found  practicable  and  advan- 


XX  INTRODUCTION. 

tageous,  it  has  been  rather  what  we  should  now  call 
State-Socialism,  by  which,  as  in  the  Jewish  polity, 
institutions  like  the  Jubilee  were  interwoven  with  the 
fundamental  laws  of  the  State  ;  a  species  of  Socialism 
that  aimed  not  at  abolishing  private  property,  but  at 
universalizing  it,  and,  by  interposing  obstacles  to  its 
too-easy  alienation,  mostly  by  limiting  the  field  of 
freedom  of  contract  by  express  commands,  at  pre- 
venting great  inequality  from  arising. 

I  have  outlined  the  successive  schemes  of  the  chief 
social  system-makers,  and  have  dwelt  at  some  length 
on  the  views  of  the  three  writers  who  have  been  most 
influential  as  respects  the  development  of  Socialism, 
namely  Rousseau,  St.  Simon,  and  Karl  Marx  ;  the 
first,  the  founder  of  modern  Democracy  and  of  State- 
Socialism  ;  the  second,  of  a  kind  of  aristocratic 
Socialism  based  on  natural  inequality  of  capacity  ;  the 
third,  of  the  new  Socialism,  which  has  gained  favour 
with  the  working  classes  in  all  civilized  countries,  and 
which  agrees  with  the  first  in  being  democratic,  and 
with  the  second  in  aiming  at  collective  ownership. 

It  is  with  the  third  of  these,  commonly  called 
Collectivism,  that  we  shall  be  concerned  in  the  second 
part  of  the  book  (Chaps.  IV.— VIII.).  And  with 
respect  to  it,  we  must  first  observe  that  the  historical 
summary  which  condemns  communism  in  general  as 
impracticable  does  not  apply  to  it,  in  so  far  as  it 
allows  to  some  extent  private  property  and  inheri- 
tance ;  it  would  only  apply  to  it  in  so  far  as  it 
approaches  to  communism.  But  the  Socialists  hold 
further,  that  a  historical  condemnation  of  past  systems 


INTRODUCTION.  Xxi 

does  not  apply  to  their  system,  because  the  industrial 
and  social  circumstances  are  different  to-day,  because 
their  system,  they  say,  is  adapted  to  the  new  circum- 
stances, and  because  the  social  and  industrial  evolu- 
tion still  going  on  is  spontaneously  leading  up  to 
their  ideal,  and  must  inevitably  issue  in  it,  spite  of 
argument  or  of  effort  to  the  contrary.  And  there  is 
in  this  so  much  of  truth,  together  with  unproved  or 
doubtful  assumption,  that  the  system  must  be  exa- 
mined separately  on  its  own  merits,  apart  from  the 
judgment  of  history  on  past  systems. 

I  take  the  form  of  Socialism  called  Collectivism, 
which  postulates  the  collective  ownership  of  land  and 
capital,  with  production  under  State  direction,  to  be 
Socialism.  I  do  so  because  most  Socialists,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  are  collectivists,  and  because  the  col- 
lectivists  regard  themselves  as  the  true  church,  though, 
as  will  be  seen  hereafcer,  there  are  differences  within 
its  bosom  as  to  the  way  of  attaining  the  goal,  the 
further  and  ultimate  aims  when  the  goal  is  reached, 
and  even  as  to  the  time  of  its  realization  ;  there  being 
some  who  look  for  the  coming  of  the  Socialist  king- 
dom within  a  generation  or  two,  whilst  others  post- 
pone the  event  indefinitely,  but  still  expect  it  to 
come. 

In  giving  an  exposition  of  Collectivism,  there  is  a 
difficulty  from  a  certain  reserve  on  the  part  of  authori- 
tative writers  as  regards  their  positive  programmes. 
Neither  Karl  Marx  nor  Lassalle  submit  any  be- 
yond the  vaguest  outline,  as  M.  Leroy-Beauh'eu  com- 
plains ;    but   this   want   of  definite  programme,    as 


XXll  INTRODUCTION. 

Dr.  Schjeffle  says,  in  his  criticism  of  the  new  Socialism, 
is  perfectly  natural,  as  well  as  prudent  on  their  part ; 
and  after  all  it  is  just  as  well  that  they  do  not  submit 
detailed  programmes  ;  the  refutation  of  which,  how- 
ever much  the  refuter  might  plume  himself  on  it,  would 
be  little  to  the  purpose.  It  is  best  that  our  attention 
should  be  directed  to  the  main  topics  and  larger  issues 
round  which  the  battle  must  turn.  And  the  main 
topics,  with  which  the  principal  issues  are  connected, 
are  the  chief  economic  categories:  the  production  of 
wealth  ;  its  distribution  amongst  the  different  kinds  of 
labourers,  productive  and  unproductive  ;  money  and 
exchange,  with  their  proposed  suppression  under 
Socialism  ;  the  theory  of  value  ;  these,  together  with 
the  position  of  the  liberal  professions,  of  literature,  art, 
science,  and  the  nature  of  the  Socialist  Government  ; 
— with  reference  to  all  of  which  I  have  considered  the 
views  of  the  new  Socialism  in  Chaps.  V.  to  VIII.  ; 
while  the  argument  of  Karl  Marx,  on  which  the 
moral  case  of  Socialism  rests,  is  examined  in 
Chap.  IV. 

In  the  expository  part  I  have  confined  myself  in  the 
main  to  general  considerations  ;  where  details  are 
entered  into  they  are  such  as  are  either  generally 
agreed  upon  by  Socialists,  or  are  the  strictly  logical 
consequences  of  their  general  principle — conse- 
quences which  can  be  seen  necessarily  to  follow  by 
placing  oneself  at  the  central  point  of  view.  Where 
the  Socialists  themselves  have  not  come  to  unanimity 
on  a  capital  point,  such  as  whether  there  is  to  be 
equality  or  inequality  of  remuneration,  both  views  are 


INTKODUCTION.  xxiii 

considered,  as  well  as  the  general  tendency  of  the 
system  to  one  or  other. 

As  the  result,  partly  of  the  historical  review,  which 
shows  what  things  the  universal  human  experience  has 
decided  against  in  the  past,  as  well  as  what  has  stood 
the  test  of  time,  partly  of  the  criticism  which  shows 
how  much  of  the  present  system  must  be  retained, 
and  how  much  of  the  Socialist  system  must  be  given 
up,  but  chiefly  from  the  consideration  of  powerful 
present  facts  and  tendencies, — what  is  practicable  in 
the  general  Socialist  direction,  as  well  as  what  is  in  the 
sequence  of  these  tendencies,  is  ascertained  and  stated 
in  the  last  four  chapters.  It  is  in  this  way  only  that 
the  course  of  the  social  movement  in  the  line  of  least 
resistance  can  be  roughly  discovered.  I  believe  that 
the  path  of  the  possible  for  statesmen  and  social  re- 
formers lies  in  the  direction  and  within  the  limits  there 
indicated,  though  the  category  of  time  has  to  be  con- 
sidered, and  public  opinion  may  not  be  ripe  or  not 
equally  ripe  for  all  the  measures  indicated. 


IT. 

I  HAVE  aimed  as  far  as  possible  at  scientific  treat- 
ment throughout,  that  is,  I  have  tried  to  consider  the 
subject  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  economical, 
moral,  and  jjolitical  sciences,  as  being  the  only  mode  of 
treatment  that  goes  to  the  heart  of  the  subject.  More- 
over, the  new  Socialism  calls  itself  scientific,  and  ap- 
peals to  political  economj',  and  to  historical  science 
including  the  new  doctrine  of  evolution  as  exemplified 


XXIV  INTRODUCTION. 

in  the  history  of  human  societies,  and  it  must  be  met 
and  judged  on  its  own  ground.  It  appeals  in  par- 
ticular to  political  economy,  as  in  fact  does  also  the 
existing  capitalist  and  individualist  system,  so  that 
the  decisive  battle  must  be  fought  in  the  field  of 
economics.  But  here  it  is  especially  necessary  to 
distinguish  laws  that  always  hold  and  that  are  more 
properly  called  scientific  laws,  from  laws  that  are 
merely  temporary,  or  local,  to  distinguish  hypothetical 
from  real  laws  and  the  fully-verified  theory  from  the 
theory  still  disputed, — the  latter  occupying  a  consider- 
able portion  of  the  economic  field.  We  must  also  dis- 
tinguish the  practical  postulate  or  assumption  like 
laissez-faire  from  other  fundamental  assumptions  such 
as  the  universality  of  competition,  the  former  being  a 
maxim  of  policy  more  and  more  discredited  as  a 
maxim,  the  latter  a  fact  generally  realized,  and  de- 
pending on  principles  of  human  nature,  though  in  its 
mischievous  forms  becoming  less  true  from  the  spread 
of  the  opposite  fact  of  combination.  Both  the  facts  of 
laissez-faire  and  competition  were  indeed  necessary 
and  fair  assumptions  to  the  orthodox  economy  when 
it  occupied  a  larger  and  more  undisputed  territory 
than  it  now  does  ;  but  the  former  was  a  principle  of 
Political  Economy  in  a  wholly  difierent  sense  from 
the  latter  ;  it  was  an  assumption  which  implied  a 
precept  or  maxim  of  State  policy,  the  latter  an  ap- 
proximate generalization  which  laigely  corresponded 
and  which  still,  though  in  a  less  measure,  corresponds, 
to  facts.  If  these  distinctions  are  not  made,  the 
Socialist    and   the  Individualist   may  alike  beg  the 


INTRODUCTION.  XXV 

question  under  cover  of  an  appeal  to  the  assumed 
"principles  of  political  economy." 

Accordingly,  we  cannot  allow  Karl  Marx  and  the 
new  Socialists  to  assume  as  beyond  dispute  Ricardo's 
theory  of  value,  which  makes  the  comparative  value 
of  commodities  depend  on  the  comparative  quantity 
of  labour  necessary  to  produce  them  and  carry  them  to 
market ;  because  there  are  decisive  reasons  against 
the  theory,  which  moreover  has  been  objected  to  on 
good  grounds  by  authoritative  English  economists 
since  Ricardo's  time.'  Nevertheless,  this  theory  of 
value  of  Ricardo's,  slightly  developed,  or  altered, 
together  with  his  famous  theory  of  minimum  or 
bare  subsistence  wages  (called  by  Lassalle  the  "  Iron 
Law  of  Wages  "),  a  little  exaggerated,  is  the  founda- 
tion of  Karl  Marx's  whole  attack  on  Capitalism,  and 
of  the  attempt  to  prove  capital  and  its  accumulations 
the  result  of  spoliation. 

Moreover,  this  same  theory  of  value  in  another 
aspect,  in  which  the  quantity  of  labour  is  measured 
by  hours  of  "average"  or  common  labour,  is  made 
the  foundation  of  a  supposed  law  of  distribution, 
which  is  to  render  to  each  in  proportion  to  his  amount 

'  It  is  indeed  partly  defended  by  Cairnes,  in  whose  hands, 
however,  the  innate  impotence  of  the  theory  is  unintentionally 
made  manifest;  as  by  "quantity  of  labour"  Cairnes  under- 
stands duration  or  the  number  of  hours  of  labour,  but  insists 
that  these  should  be  multiplied  by  the  severity  of  the  labour 
and  again  by  its  risk;  being  apparently  unconscious  that  the 
word  "  multiplication "  has  no  meaning  where  there  is  no 
quantitative  measure  of  the  multiplying  factors,  as  in  the  case  of 
degrees  of  severity  or  of  risk. 


XXVI  INTRODUCTION. 

of  work — in  fact,  to  furnish  a  self-acting  law  of 
distribution,  by  which  distributive  justice  would  be 
meted  out  to  all  ;  which  would  indeed  have  been  one 
of  the  greatest  discoveries  ever  made  if  the  theory 
could  be  sustained. 

The  theory  of  value,  in  the  hands  of  Karl  Marx,  is 
in  fact  almost  the  whole  of  Socialism.  According  to 
Dr.  Schaeffle,  the  most  candid  as  well  as  the  keenest 
critic  of  Socialism,  the  theory  is  "  in  the  strictest  sense 
the  basis  of  Socialism.  It  is  of  no  less  importance  than 
any  theory  of  Rousseau's,  and  its  correction  is  perhaps 
significant  for  the  history  of  entire  nations."  For 
these  reasons  the  theory  must  be  subjected  to  a 
searching  criticism  before  we  can  let  it  pass  as 
proved. 

On  the  other  hand,  when  an  "orthodox"  economist 
or  a  politician  objects  to  a  proposed  practical  measure 
as  being  "  against  the  principles  of  political  economy," 
he  should  be  asked  whether  he  means  the  principle 
of  non-interference,  or  the  theories  and  laws  of  the 
science ;  if  the  former,  he  merely  assumes  the 
point,  but  if  the  latter,  he  should  be  reminded  that 
some  supposed  laws  and  theories,  like  Mill's  Wages 
Fund  theory,  are  not  merely  in  dispute,  but  given 
up  ;  that  others,  agai,n  like  the  law  of  supply  and 
demand,  are  eternally  true,  e.g.  that  a  diminished 
supply  of  a  necessary,  demand  being  the  same,  raises 
its  market  value,  and  may  raise  it  much  ;  that  an  over- 
great  supply  of  any  commodity  (labour  included), 
compared  with  demand,  must  lower  its  value,  if  all 
of  it  is  to  be  sold,  it  being  because  of  the  former  law 


INTRODUCTION.  XXVii 

that  the  interference  of  Government  is  asked  for  in  the 
cases  of  monopolies  (or  syndicates,  unions,  and  trusts), 
controlling  any  necessary  of  life,  so  that  proposals 
which  he  would  perhaps  call  socialistic  may  be  made 
to  rest  on  an  economic  law  or  fact,  and  can  equally 
with  his  own  be  asked  for  in  the  name  of  political 
economy ;  from  all  which,  and  more  that  might  be 
urged,  follows  the  conclusion  to  be  insisted  upon, 
that  while  part  of  political  economy  is  eternally  true, 
and  cannot  be  disregarded,  even  though  it  lend  itself 
to  Socialism  as  well  as  to  Individualism,  part  is  doubt- 
ful, and  should  be  distinguished,  and  part  again  is 
ceasing  to  be  true,  except  hypothetical ly,  from  the 
simple  fact  of  social  and  industrial  evolution. 

In  order  to  have  a  more  indisputable  as  well  as 
useful  body  of  economic  doctrine  to  appeal  to  in  the 
controversy  between  Socialism  and  Individualism,  as 
well  as  in  the  more  limited  one  between  Capital 
and  Labour,  it  would  be  desirable  to  have  the 
laws  which  determine  wages  and  profits,  as  well  as 
those  of  values  and  prices,  restated  up  to  date,  and  on 
the  assumption,  not  only  of  competition,  but  of 
combination  more  or  less  complete  on  the  part  of 
labourers  as  well  as'  employers.  It  will  be  more 
useful  in  future  to  know  what  determines  the  wages 
of  the  different  grades  of  labourers,  especially  of  the 
skilled  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  unskilled  on  the 
other,  than  what  derermincs  the  general  or  average 
wage  of  all  labourers  as  was  formerly  asked.  The 
Wages  Fund  theory  will  have  to  be  finally  dropped  : 
the  theory  which  made  average  wages  depend  on  the 


XXVlll  INTRODUCTION. 

proportion  between  capital  and  population  ;  or  more 
strictly  between  a  part  of  capital  called  the  Wages 
Fund  and  all  hired  labourers  ;  the  short  formula  to 
which  the  labourer  and  his  philanthropic  friends 
were  formerly  referred,  which  saved  all  the  trouble 
of  examining  special  remedies  for  low  wages  ;  to 
which,  in  particular,  trades  unionists  were  referred 
to  prove  the  impossibility  of  their  raising  their  own 
wages  without  cutting  down  the  wages  of  other 
labourers,  because  the  amount  to  be  divided  amongst 
them  all  was  a  fixed  and  unalterable  sum  ; — this 
theory,  the  comfort  of  the  capitalist,  the  economics  in 
a  nutshell  of  the  Malthusian,  has  finally  given  way  in 
spite  of  the  able  efforts  of  Cairnes,  "  the  last  of  the 
orthodox,"  to  prop  it  up. 

In  treating  the  problem  of  wages  on  the  assump- 
tion of  combination  as  well  as  competition,  at  least  four 
cases  may  arise,  viz.  that  of  competition  amongst  both 
employers  and  labourers  ;  of  combination  amongst 
both  ;  of  combination  on  the  side  of  the  labourers, 
but  not  on  the  side  of  the  employers  (which  is  now 
perhaps  the  commonest  case)  ;  of  combination  on  the 
side  of  employers,  but  not  on  the  side  of  the  labourers 
(which  is  a  not  uncomm.on  case).  There  is  also  the 
case,  increasing  in  frequency,  of  partial  combination 
on  both  sides.  But  whilst  all  these  cases  are  possible, 
the  tendency  is  to  further  combination  in  both  camps  : 
and  the  resulting  problem  of  how  to  determine  wages 
or  the  price  at  which  labour  will  be  sold,  or  at  which  a 
bargain  will  be  m.ade,  becomes  a  very  difficult  one. 
The  wages  might  be  the  result  of  a  trial  of  strength 


INTRODUCTION.  XXl'x 

and  resources  between  all  the  labourers  and  all  the 
employers  in  a  particular  trade  or  branch  of  labour ; 
while  if  a  dispute  were  confined,  as  it  generally  now  is, 
to  a  particular  group  of  labourers  within  a  given  area 
and  locality,  e.g.  the  bakers,  gas-men,  railway  porters, 
and  their  employers,  it  would  also  be  a  question  of 
resources  or  staying  power,  where  the  employers 
would  generally  occupy  the  stronger  position  were 
both  sides  left  to  fight  it  out.  But  the  fact  is  that  the 
public  is  generally  a  deeply  interested  party,and  public 
opinion  of  necessity  almost  takes  the  form  of  putting 
pressure  on  one  or  other  side,  according  to  its  ideas  of 
fairness  or  of  the  general  interest,  and  thus  of  com- 
pelling one  or  other  side  to  give  way.  If  the  adverse 
sanction  of  public  opinion  did  not  cause  the  dispute 
to  be  arranged,  arbitration  would  be  necessitated,  or 
failing  that,  the  interposition  in  some  form  of  the 
public  authority. 

There,  however,  is  one  thing  no  strikes  could  effect, 
nor  any  court  of  arbitration  effectively  award  for  any 
considerable  length  of  time,  namely  a  rate  of  wages 
that  would  lower  profits,  or  more  properly  speaking 
interest,  much  below  what  was  current  in  the  business 
sphere  in  general. 

Such  is  the  form  in  which  the  problem  of  wages 
tends  to  present  itself  more  and  more  in  future, 
which  makes  it  difficult  of  treatment  by  the  old  eco- 
nomic methods.  Moreover,  prices  tend  more  and  more 
to  be  determined  not  so  much  by  cost  of  production 
as  by  monopoly,  whether  that  of  the  original  producers 
or  that  of  any  of  the  series  of  intermediaries  who  may 


XXX  .     INTRODUCTION. 

temporarily  control  the  supply,  especially  in  the  case 
of  necessaries  or  commodities  in  great  demand  ;  in 
which  case  prices  tend  indeed,  as  economists  say,  to 
depend  on  the  relation  between  supply  and  demand, 
which,  however, does  not  tell  us  much,  but  in  which  it  is 
clear  that  the  monopolists  are  in  a  very  advantageous 
position  for  forcing  up  the  price,  in  the  case  of  neces- 
saries almost  indefinitely,  in  the  case  of  other  things 
not  so  high,  but  still  too  high  ;  from  which  there 
follow  these  two  consequences,  the  economic  one,  that 
there  is  no  single  uniform  law  of  prices  for  all  such 
cases,  and  the  practical  one,  that  if  such  monopolies 
increase,  and  if  the  monopolists  abuse  the  position  of 
vantage  they  hold,  there  might  come  a  necessity  for 
State  interference,  however  Socialistic  such  conclusion 
may  appear.  Competition  amongst  the  sellers  has 
hitherto  largely  guarded  the  buyers  against  high 
prices  ;  competition,  though  it  has  sometimes  re- 
sulted in  sophisticated  goods,  has,  on  the  whole,  been 
a  gain  to  the  consumer,  that  is  to  everybody.  But  if 
the  sellers  of  goods  or  indispensable  services  should 
form  combinations  ;  if  bread,  coal,  beer,  and  other 
syndicates  should  be  formed,  or  a  series  of  such, 
wherever  there  are  many  intermediaries  between 
producer  and  consumer,  then  the  prices  might  rise 
very  high,  especially  if  such  grew  so  great  as  to 
embrace  most  engaged  in  the  production  or  most  of 
the  wholesale  or  retail  distributors  ;  while,  if  there 
should  arise  powerful  monopolies  that  paid  both  the 
lowest  wages  to  their  employes,  and  exacted  the 
highest  price  from  the  consumer,  of  which  the  rail. 


INTRODUCTION.  XXXl 

way  companies  form  a  partial  present  example,  it 
might  be  found  necessary  for  the  State  to  interfere 
(were  it  only  at  first  by  way  of  regulation  after  due 
inquiry)  with  such  a  formidable  power  wielding  such 
a  two-edged  weapon. 

Thus,  then,  while  political  economy  must  be 
appealed  to  in  the  Socialist  controversy,  as  in  fact 
both  sides  do  appeal  to  it,  though  the  battle  must 
be  largely  fought  on  the  economic  field,  and  though 
the  received  economic  method  and  conceptions  must 
be  largely  made  use  of  for  clearness  and  convenience, 
and  because  they  are  the  best  available  intellectual 
implements,  nevertheless  much  of  the  economic  field 
is  in  dispute,  while  the  received  method  and  concep- 
tions are  imperfectly  able  to  deal  with  the  difficult 
problems  raised  and  the  newer  ones  soon  to  be 
raised. 

III. 

But  the  question  of  Socialism,  though  an  economical 
one  in  the  sense  explained,  is  even  more  essentially 
an  ethical  question,  as  it  involves,  in  the  first  place, 
the  whole  great  question  of  justice — not  justice  in  the 
narrow  sense  in  which  the  word  is  commonly  used, 
but  in  the  most  comprehensive  as  well  as  deepest  sense. 
Socialism  has  come  into  the  world  because  of  injustice, 
in  the  first  instance:  so  say  the  Socialists.  It  is  also 
come  because  the  social  evolution  has  prepared  the 
way  for  it ;  but  still  its  main  aim  is  to  realize 
justice.    The  present  system,  industrial  and  social,  the 


XXXll  INTRODUCTION. 

Socialists  say,  is  organized  injustice,  which  results 
in  injustice  in  all  directions,  gross  and  palpable. 
And  the  remarkable  thing  is  that  they  have  all  but 
gained  over,  or  are  gaining  over,  the  economists  to 
their  view,  both  in  England  and  in  Germany.  Mill, 
for  example,  in  his  "  Political  Economy,"  constantly 
declaims  against  the  injustice  involved  in  the  present 
distribution  of  wealth,  and  he  repeats  his  denunciation 
in  his  "  Autobiography."  Cairnes,  in  his  last  book, 
has  discovered  that  the  results  of  the  existing  in- 
dustrial system  "  are  not  easily  reconcilable  with 
any  standard  of  right  generally  accepted  amongst 
men,"  and  he  quotes  Shakespeare  as  on  his  side;^ 
while  Professor  Sidgwick,  eminent  as  a  writer  on 
morals  as  well  as  economics,  goes  so  far  as  to  say, 
"  If  the  former  method  (the  Socialist's)  of  providing 
for  the  progress  of  industry  could  be  trusted  to  work 
without  any  counterbalancing  drawbacks,  the  per- 
petuation of  the  inequalities  of  distribution  that  we 
see  to  be  inevitably  bound  up  with  the  existing  system 
would  be  difficult  to  reconcile  with  our  common  sense 
of  justice." 

The  point,  then,  of  the  resulting  injustice  of  the 
existing  system  is  conceded.  The  question  of  course 
still  remains,  whether  Socialism  would  secure  any 
greater  justice,  and  whether  it  would  be  practicable, 
taking  human  nature  as  it  is. 

2  "  Take  physic.  Pomp, 
Expose  thyself  to  feel  the  woes  that  wretches  feel : 
So  shalt  thou  shake  the  superflux  to  them, 
And  show  the  heavens  more  just." 


INTRODUCTION.  XXXlU 

Two  rules  for  securing  distributive  justice  are  indi- 
cated :  the  first,  the  simple  rule  of  equality,  the 
second,  that  each  should  receive  according  to  his 
works.  Now  the  former  does  appear  at  first  sight 
as  if  it  would  secure  greater  justice  than  our  present 
system  ;  but  whether  it  would  be  really  just  is  dis- 
puted by  different  Schools  of  Socialists ;  the  St. 
Simonians  in  the  past,  as  well  as  some  of  the  present 
Socialists,  being  opposed  to  it  as  unjust.  The  ques- 
tion would  be  an  extremely  difficult  one  to  decide 
on  ethical  grounds,  but  the  real  question  is  less 
one  of  abstract  or  ideal  justice  than  of  expediency. 
The  question  is  whether  it  would  be  practicable  at  all, 
and  if  it  could  conceivably  be  practicable,  whether  it 
would  not  be  disastrous  :  whether  the  equality  would 
not  be  a  universal  equality  in  poverty,  at  a  still  lower 
level  than  that  of  the  mass  of  the  working-classes  of 
to-day. 

The  second  socialist  rule  for  securing  greater 
justice,  that  each  should  get,  not  equally,  but  in  pro- 
portion to  his  works,  or  the  quantity  of  his  labour,  is 
one  that  we  shall  have  to  examine  carefully  here- 
after. As  to  its  justice,  there  are  differences  of 
opinion,  Mill  contending  that  the  rule  of  equality 
appeals  to  a  higher  standard  of  justice;  but  even  if 
we  allow  that  there  appears  a  kind  of  justice  in  the 
unequal  rule,  and  that  it  is  more  in  agrcem.cnt  with 
existing  human  nature,  there  arises  the  greatest  diffi- 
culty, or  rather  impossibility,  in  applying  it  on  the 
Socialist  lines,  from  the  want  of  a  common  measure  of 
quantity  applicable  to  the  different  kinds  of  labour. 


XXXlV  INTRODUCTION. 

As  Professor  Jevons  says,  it  is  "  impossible  to  compare, 
a  priori,  the  productive  powers  of  a  navvy,  a  carpenter, 
an  iron  puddler,  a  barrister,  and  a  schoolmaster." 
This  is  true,  and  the  confusion  into  which  it  throws 
Socialism,  which  rests  on  the  assumption  that  they 
can  be  reduced  to  a  common  denominator  in  hours  of 
average  or  common  labour  and  compared  in  amount, 
will  appear  more  fully  hereafter. 

But  the  Socialist  controversy  raises  even  deeper 
questions  than  that  of  justice.  Besides  the  deepest 
psychological  questions,  it  raises  the  whole  difficult 
and  disputed  question  of  man's  capacity  for  moral 
progress.  And  first  it  is  allowed  by  thoughtful  and 
fair-minded  men,  like  Mill,  Laveleye,  and  Schceffle, 
that  Socialism  would  not  work  unless  man's  moral 
nature  were  considerably  improved.  But  the  science 
of  psychology  shows  a  certain  stability  and  certain 
permanent  facts  in  human  nature,  in  particular  th^ 
most  eminent  psychologists,  like  Spencer  and  Bain, 
report  the  fact  of  egoism  (self-interest,  self-love) 
as  a  fundamental  and  an  instinctive  thing  not  to  begot 
rid  of.  Moreover  it  is  passed  on  from  generation  to 
generation  through  heredity,  so  that  each  generation 
has  about  the  same  total  amount  of  it  as  the  preced- 
ing one.  It  is  a  sure  inheritance,  and  so  general  that 
political  economy  has  made  it  its  fundamental  pos- 
tulate, which,  as  Senior  says,  is  related  to  all  its  con- 
elusions  as  the  dictum  de  omni  in  Logic  is  related  to 
all  syllogistic  conclusions ;  the  economic  laws,  bemg 
all  tainted  with  this  original  sin,  only  holding  if  the 
fact  of   egoism    be  granted,  being   merely  so  many 


INTRODUCTION.  XXXV 

special  modes  in  which  it  is  exemplified.  The  ques- 
tion then  is  raised,  can  this  fact  of  deep  ingrained  love  of 
self  be  considerably  reduced,  and  not  merely  in  superior 
spirits  here  and  there  but  generally  ?  for  if  it  cannot, 
the  Socialism  that  aims  at  equality,  or  even  at  greatly 
reducing  inequality,  would  not  work.  And  it  would 
be  even  less  suited  in  this  respect  to  a  modern 
civilized  community  than  to  a  less  advanced  one ; 
for  though  our  egoism  is  perhaps  not  greater,  it  has 
discovered  new  wants  ;  it  has  been  specially  and  in- 
creasingly tempted  during  the  past  hundred  years  by 
the  vast  new  masses  of  wealth  to  be  competed  for. 
It  is  probably  more  grasping  in  all  that  refers  to  the 
acquisition  of  money  and  material  things  than  ever 
before.  Unless,  then,  a  large  scope  could  be  given 
to  the  "  favourite  private  affection,"  as  Butler  calls  it, 
and  a  larger  scope  than  the  new  Socialism  can  promise, 
Socialism  is  impracticable. 

Any  system,  socialistic  or  other,  which  does  not 
allow  sufficiently  for  this  fact  of  human  nature,  which 
requires  to  postulate  that  it  can  be  largely  reduced, 
especially  that  it  can  be  reduced  in  a  short  time, 
would  in  practice  be  doomed  to  speedy  failure.  The 
self-regarding  side  of  human  nature  slowly  changes, 
is  slowly  reduced  ;  the  opposite  side,  including  bene- 
volence and  love  for  others,  slowly  increases  ;  so 
slowly  that  at  the  end  of  nearly  2000  years  we  are 
behind  the  early  Christians,  and  it  is  a  question  if  we 
arc  beyond  the  Greeks  and  Romans  at  their  best 
period,  though  we  have  had  the  help  and  the  sanc- 
tions of  a  religion  that  urges  us  to  reduce   egoism 


XXXvi  INTRODUCTION. 

and  to   increase   our   love   for   others  as   our   chief 
duty. 

Some  of  the  Christian  Churches,  recognizing  the 
impossibiUty  of  a  man  changing  his  own  nature  for 
the  better,  get  over  the  difficulty  by  the  assumption 
of  a  special  miracle.  Can  the  Socialists  expect  a  uni- 
versal miracle  ?  Apparently  the  more  sanguine  do  ; 
they  think  that  within  a  hundred  years  at  latest  men 
will  be  fit  for  the  Socialist  kingdom  of  heaven, 
not  to  speak  of  those  who  would  take  the  kingdom 
by  violence,  even  before  the  present  generation  passes. 

I  do  not  deny  the  fact  of  moral  progress  in  certain 
directions  during  the  past  hundred  years  ;  that  there 
has  been  a  new  sense  of  Justice,  an  awakened  Con- 
science,  enlarged  Philanthropy,  shown  in  certain 
choicer  spirits,  especially  with  reference  to  the  labour- 
ing classes  and  the  poor.  I  allow  that  moralists  have 
rediscovered  the  Christian  duty  of  love  of  our  neigh- 
bour when  religion  was  beginning  to  lose  its  authority, 
and  that  psychologists  have  found  a  basis  for  it  in 
certain  facts  of  human  nature  ;  that  English  moralists 
of  the  eighteenth  century  of  all  schools  have  proved 
that  benevolence,  or  love  of  our  neighbour,  is  the 
whole,  or  nearly  the  whole,  of  virtue.  I  allow,  too, 
that  in  the  nineteenth  century,  Benthamism,  which 
makes  virtue  or  right  conduct  consist  in  actions 
tending  to  maximize  happiness  ;  Positivism,  which 
makes  it  consist  in  the  love  and  service  of  Humanity  ; 
Socialism  of  the  St.  Simonian  type,  which  makes 
virtue  and  practical  religion  in  the  fortunate  classes 
to   consist   in  endeavouring   to   raise   the  condition 


INTRODUCTION.  XXXVli 

of  the  class  the  most  numerous  and  the  poorest, — 
are  all  facts  in  favour  of  the  Socialists'  faith  in  im- 
proved human  nature.  Nevertheless,  I  believe  that 
little  real  impression  has  been  made  on  egoism  or  the 
opposite  side  of  human  nature.  I  believe  that  it  has 
even  been  intensified  on  its  more  anti-social  side ; 
that  there  has  been  moral  loss  as  well  as  gain,  and 
that  it  would  require  an  extremely  skilled  moral 
valuator  to  cast  up  the  moral  profit  and  loss  of  the 
account. 

For  egoism  has  undoubtedly  been  tempted  to  an 
extraordinary  degree  by  the  prodigious  development 
of  wealth  during  the  past  century,  and  the  new 
possibilities  of  making  fortunes,  first  in  England  by 
"her  world-wide  commerce  and  the  monopoly  of 
foreign  markets,  then  in  the  other  leading  European 
nations,  and,  above  all,  latterly  in  America,  in  the 
exploitation  of  a  continent  prodigal  in  natural  re- 
sources. All  this  wealth  was,  in  the  first  instance, 
the  prize  for  the  capitalist  class, — the  manufacturers, 
merchants,  financiers, — and  through  them  subse- 
quently, a  large  part  of  it,  for  the  non-trading  sections 
of  the  middle  class,  professional  and  other.  As- 
suredly, if  the  love  of  money  is  the  root  of  much  evil, 
it  was  never  so  stimulated  before.  And  the  resulting 
Mammonism  denounced  by  Ca/lylc  forty  years  ago 
has  not  grown  less,  but  greater,  and  has  infected 
more.  Wealth  is  more  keenly  pursued  than  it  was 
one  hundred  or  even  fifry  years  ago.  Egoism  was 
formerly  held  in  check  by  Religion,  Love  of  Country^ 
Honour, devotion  to  a  Cause, — high  influences,  before 


xxxviii  INTRODUCTION. 

which  it  was  rebuked,  and  which  sometimes  totally 
overcame  it.  A  man  dared  not  formerly  confess 
self-interest  his  sole  motive,  and  did  not  make  money 
his  one  end  in  life.  There  was  an  old-world  idea 
that  the  pursuit  of  money  was  not  a  high  one  ;  that 
it  could  scarcely  be  followed  with  clean  hands  ;  a 
notion  that  long  survived  in  the  feudal  families'  dis- 
like of  "  trade."  The  ideas  and  the  practices  are  all 
different  now.  Money  is  power,  and  much  money, 
as  Mill  says,  is  the  mark  and  measure  of  success 
in  life.  I  do  not  deny  that  rich  men  have  often 
latterly  shown  public  spirit  in  endowing  the  public 
with  part  of  their  acquired  wealth.  But  these  are 
exceptions ;  the  rich  as  a  class  have  not  done  their 
duty,  and  they  have  not,  as  Carlyle  complained, 
ennobled  and  humanized  their  work  by  making  a 
chivalry  out  of  it,  by  attaching  to  them,  by  bonds  of 
loyalty  and  devotion,  their  allies  in  the  industrial 
fight,  as  even  the  robber  barons  and  worst  of  the 
feudal  lords  did  their  liegemen  in  feudal  times. 
They  have  too  often  cut  down  their  wages,  not  even 
giving  them  "  prize  money  "  as  the  result  of  successful 
battle,  till  mutiny,  in  the  shape  of  trades  unions  and 
strikes,  at  length  in  some  measure  compelled  them. 

On  the  whole,  then,  whoever  affirms  that  there  has 
been  moral  improvement  will  have  to  weigh  very 
carefully  the  many  moral  evils  that  have  come  with 
the  great  accumulation  of  wealth,  including  luxury, 
rapacity,  ostentation,  pride  of  purse  in  the  pos- 
.sessors,  servility  and  envy  in  others ;  the  general 
covetousness    and    corruption ;    the    cheating     and 


INTRODUCTION.  XXXIX 

swindling;  the  oppression  of  tne  weak,  the  pkind^r  of 
the  widow  and  the  orphan  by  fraudulent  companies  ; 
and  set  over  against  them  the  counter-facts  of  philan- 
thropy, benevolence,  awakened  conscience,  sense  of 
justice,  which  also  have  shown  themselves  though  in 
other  members  of  society,  and  it  will  be  found  a 
difficult  thing  to  prpnounce  a  confident  verdict.  The 
most  that  could  be  said  is,  that  while  in  some  direc- 
tions there  has  been  moral  advance,  in  others  there 
has  been  retrogression. 

One  of  the  most  disputed  and  difficult  questions 
in  the  history  of  civilization  and  morals  is  precisely 
that  which  is  here  involved,  namely,  whether  general 
progress,  including  progress  in  the  arts  and  sciences, 
implies  a  moral  improvement,  or  the  reverse.  Rous- 
seau contends  that  the  progress  of  the  arts  and 
sciences,  and  the  increase  of  wealth,  corrupt  morals  ; 
that  a  nation  is  in  a  healthier  state  in  its  earlier 
stages.  Sir  Henry  Maine  affirms  that  Rousseau  was 
wrong,  but  Carlyle,  in  his  "  Past  and  Present,"  in 
which  he  represents  society  as  healthier  in  P2ngland 
in  the  time  of  Henry  II.  than  in  the  nineteenth 
century,  agrees  with  Rousseau.  The  new  German 
Pessimism,  in  agreement  with  the  old  Calvinism, 
does  not  believe  in  moral  progress ;  it  thinks  that 
the  quantity  of  evil  in  man  is  constant,  and  only 
varies  in  its  modes  of  expression.  Mill  is  on  the 
opposite  side,  but  he  rather  believes  that  great  moral 
progress  will  be,  than  that  there  has  been  much  as 
yet ;  Herbert  Spencer  is  also  optimist ;  but  let  not 
the  Socialists  derive  comfort  from  the  prophet  of  cvolu- 


xl  INTRODUCTION 

tion,  according  to  whom  the  species  improves  indeed, 
but  at  a  rate  so  tantalizingly  slow  that  men  would 
not  be  ripe  morally  for  the  Socialist  state  for  a 
thousand  years.  With  such  a  conflict  of  authorities 
it  might  be  rash  to  pronounce  confidently.  I  shall 
therefore  only  venture  the  opinion  that  the  species 
has  morally  improved  on  the  whole  ;  that  even  society 
within  the  past  hundred  years  has  become  better, 
because  its  ruling  classes  have  been  somewhat 
awakened,  and  made  to  reflect  by  powerful  preachers, 
and  by  severe  lessons  of  experience ;  while  the  manners 
of  all  have  been  softened,  and  the  laws  have  become 
more  just  and  humane.  But  as  respects  egoism,  there 
has  been  little  improvement,  especially  on  its  weak 
side,  where  it  seeks  for  this  world's  goods.  On  the 
contrary,  I  believe  we  have  rather  retrograded. 

At  all  events,  this  quality  of  egoism,  or  self-interest, 
is  still  far  too  strong,  and  far  too  general  to  allow  us 
to  hope  for  much  from  proposals  which  postulate  its 
great  reduction,  or  extinction,  or  its  transformation 
into  love,  fraternity,  or  sympathy. 

It  is  easy  to  see  how  important  this  point  is  in 
relation  to  Socialism,  as  on  it  turns  the  question 
whether  Socialism  is  possible  soon,  or  later,  or  never. 
The  question  of  man's  goodness  and  of  his  moral 
progress,  which  Socialism  postulates,  is  in  dispute, 
but  the  balance  of  opinion  is  against  the  Socialists, 
and  the  doctrine  of  scientific  evolution  to  which  they 
appeal  is  against  them.  Indeed,  so  clearly  is  it  seen 
by  certain  Socialists  that  it  is  vain  to  look  for 
much  moral  improvement,  especially  in  the  capitalist 


INTRODUCTION.  xli 

class,  that  they  advocate  revolution.  Change  the 
environment,  say  the  revolutionists,  forcibly  it  neces- 
sary, and  men's  natures  will  be  obliged  to  adapt 
thennselves  to  the  new  order  ;  they  would  accept 
the  inevitable,  even  the  egoistic  capitalists  would 
acquire  the  virtues  necessary  lor  the  new  condition, 
or  they  would  suffer  worse.  Nevertheless,  neither 
would  this  be  a  hopeful  course,  if,  dispensing  quits 
with  love  or  fraternity,  the  new  ord^r  insisted  on 
equality,  or  even  a  very  large  levelling  down  of  for- 
tunes. There  would  be  found  so  many  dissatisfied 
spirits,  and  so  ill  at  ease  in  the  new  community,  spirits 
so  restless,  energetic,  artful,  wilful,  that  (it  is  much  to 
be  feared),  by  art  or  force,  they  would  fashion  things 
to  their  liking  in  the  new  order,  or — which  would  be 
still  simpler — restore  the  old,  that  the  revolution 
would  in  fact  lead  to  counter-revolution. 

But  though  complete  Socialism  would  require  a 
moral  improvement  not  likely  to  come  soon,  some  of 
it,  and  a  considerable  improvement  on  the  present 
is  possible,  without  postulating  a  human  nature  much 
better  than  it  is.  There  are  reforms  which  might  be 
attempted  taking  us  "  just  as  we  are."  A  wider 
justice  is  undoubtedly  possible,  for  human  nature 
has  a  certain  affinity  for  justice,  or  as  M.  R^nan 
expresses  it,  in  an  unjust  world  "man  has  an  invin- 
cible leaning  towards  justice,"  without  a  minimum 
of  which  no  society  could  exist.  And  if  it  be 
difficult  for  interested  parties,  capitalists  and  landlords, 
to  see  justice,  may  not  disinterested  third  parties  see 
it  ?     May  not  philosophers,  judges,  chief  justices,  even 


Xlii  INTRODUCTION. 

legislators,  other  than  those  interested,  find  it  out  for 
them,  and  through  law  compel  them  to  do  it  ?  Though 
perfect  justice  be  an  unattainable  goal,  an  ever  greater 
approximation  to  justice  is  undoubtedly  possible,  and 
the  time  is  hopeful  to  try  for  a  further  extension  of 
it.  Apparently,  Lord  Chief  Justice  Coleridge  thought 
so  too,  when,  in  a  remarkable  article  published  not 
long  ago,  he  recommended  a  revision  of  the  laws 
relating  to  property  and  contract,  in  order,  as  he 
says,  "  to  facilitate  the  inevitable  transition  from 
feudalism  to  democracy  ; "  and  laid  down  that  "  the 
laws  of  property  should  be  for  the  general  advantage, 
and  not  for  that  of  a  class  ;  that  they  are  made  by 
the  State  for  the  people  of  the  State,  and  that  they 
should  be  expressions  of  the  cultivated  intelligence 
which  controls  and  leads  the  opinion  of  the  State 
upon  the  various  subjects  of  its  laws."  He  also 
declares  in  noteworthy  words  about  certain  so-called 
free  contracts,  that  the  contract  should  be  void  "  when 
one  party  to  a  contract  can  impose  and  the  other 
party  to  it  must  accept  its  terms,  however  burden- 
some, however  inherently  unjust,"  and  that "  contracts 
nominally  free  might  be  cruel  instruments  of  tyranny 
and  oppression,  to  be  denounced  by  moralists,  and 
to  be  summarily  set  aside  by  just  and  fair  laws."^ 
These  are  weighty  and  remarkable  words,  coming 
from  one  in  the  high  position  of  the  writer,  and  very 
significant  of  the  set  of  public  sentiment,  as  well  as 
of  a  new  spirit  in  the  interpreters  of  law  and  justice. 
The  Church  might  also  aid  the  work.  There  is  no 
8  Macmillaiis  Magazine,  April,  1887. 


INTRODUCTION.  xliii 

contradiction  between  religion  and  a  qualified 
Socialism  aiming  at  greater  justice.  Moses  and 
the  Prophets  were  Socialists,  in  a  certain  sense,  as 
well  as  religious  men.  They  aimed  at  social  justice  ; 
they  believed  its  realization  on  earth  to  be  the  wish 
and  the  will  of  God.  Nor,  as  will  be  shown  here- 
after, is  there  contradiction  between  such  Socialism 
and  the  Christianity  of  the  Gospels. 

IV. 

The  question  of  Socialism  and  the  Social  Question 
generally  is,  however,  more  obviously  related  to 
politics  than  to  religion.  It  more  concerns  the  State 
than  the  Church  which  can  only  act  in  favour  ot 
Socialism  by  influencing  the  inner  moral  disposition. 
The  State  can  act  on  the  will.  It  has  great  power  ; 
through  its  laws  and  institutions  it  can  affect  the  re- 
lations of  classes.  It  can  temper  great  inequality.  It 
can  mitigate  poverty.  It  can  check  the  strong 
oppressor.  It  can  protect  the  poor,  their  health,  their 
lives,  their  property.  Many  of  these  things  it  has 
already  done  to  some  extent,  and  it  has  shown  an 
increasing  tendency,  within  the  past  forty  years,  to 
interfere  in  order  to  ])rotect  the  feeble  workers,  and 
to  restrain  unscrupulous  employers. 

Not  only  has  the  State  great  power  to  aid  the 
lower  and  poorer  classes,  it  has  acknowledged  duties  ; 
and  these  are  extending  also.  Besides  administering 
justice,  it  is  its  duty  to  aim  at  justice  in  its  laws.  Its 
duty  is  more  than  the  protection  of  life  and  property. 
It  has  to  make  just  and  beneficial  laws  respecting 


xliv  INTRODUCTION. 

property.  It  is  Its  duty  to  enforce  contracts  ;  but  it 
may  also  be  its  duty  to  narrow  the  sphere  of  contracts 
in  certain  cases  affecting  many  where  the  contracts 
cannot  be  reallv  free.  It  is  the  business  of  the  State 
to  jealously  watch  all  monopolists,  and  it  may 
become  its  business^  in  certain  cases,  to  prevent  the 
formation  of  monopolies,  or  to  take  from  those 
already  formed  the  power  of  raising  prices  at  dis- 
cretion. 

So  great  are  the  powers  of  the  State  to  help.  So 
acknowledged  are  its  duties.  Still  the  powers  of  the 
State  are  not  infinite.  There  are  things  it  cannot  do, 
economic  laws  that  it  cannot  alter,  economic  evolu- 
tions that  it  cannot  prevent,  though  it  may  modify 
them  ;  laws  and  evolutions  therefore  that  Statesmen 
should  know,  in  order  to  know  the  right  course  to 
take  having  regard  to  them.  What  the  State  can  do, 
what  it  further  should  or  might  do  without  traversing, 
but  accepting  and  allowing  for,  these  scientific  laws 
and  tendencies,  as  well  as  the  limits  within  which 
these  laws  and  tendencies  should  confine  its  action, 
it  will  be  our  business  to  consider  carefully  hereafter. 

Meantime,  it  may  here  be  stated  that  if  not  Social- 
ism, yet  socialistic  principles  are,  without  doubt, 
destined  to  influence  the  politics  of  the  future  in  this, 
as  in  every  civilized  country.  There  are  signs,  too 
many  and  various  to  doubt  of  it ;  and  politicians, 
judging  from  their  own  words,  however  vague  and 
general,  are  probably  in  their  hearts  aware  of  it. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  about  it:  the  Social  Ques- 
tion,  so  long  held   back,  and   ignored,   is  pushing 


INTRODUCTION.  xlv 

forward  in  several    directions,  and  it  is  felt  by  poli- 
ticians that  it  must  be  faced  and  dealt  with. 

In  such  a  case  the  wise  thing  for  politicians  is  to 
get  a  clear  comprehension  of  Socialism  and  the  Social 
Question,  in  order  to  discover  how  far  the  latter  is 
soluble,  how  much  of  the  former  is  practicable,  just, 
likely  to  be  beneficial  if  adopted  by  the  State,  how 
much  is  Utopian,  or  tends  to  chaos,  or  to  general 
mischief.  One  reassuring  thing,  however,  may 
here  be  mentioned  for  the  apprehensiva  politician, 
namely  that  the  English  working  classes  are  not 
Socialists  ;  nor  are  they  very  promising  materials 
out  of  which  to  make  Socialists,  if  we  may  judge  by 
the  proceedings  of  recent  Trades  Union  Congresses. 
The  trades  unionists,  who  number  nearly  a  million, 
in  general  of  the  most  intelligent  and  best  paid  of 
the  working  classes,  do  not  believe  in  Socialism 
any  more  than  in  Co-operative  Production.  They 
are  not  Socialists  in  the  strictest  sense  ;  they  do  not 
ask  for  the  collective  ownership  of  land  and  capital  ; 
they  think  the  proposal  impracticable,  and  they 
probably  think  that  it  would  be  bad  for  themselves- 
They  would  like  higher  wages,  and  fewer  hours  of 
work  for  the  same  wages  ;  but,  where  this  is  possible, 
they  think  they  can  secure  the  end  without  the 
help  of  the  State,  through  refusal  to  work  on  other 
terms.  Whether  they  are  right  or  not,  they  do  not 
ask  for  State  interference,  not  even  to  bring  in  an 
eight-hours'  working  day,  save  in  particular  trades, 
such  as  mining.  They  have  not  asked  for  much  Icgi.s- 
lalion  that    can    be  called  socialist'c  ;  of  wl.at  tlvy 


xlvi  INTRODUCTION. 

do  ask  from  Parliament,  namely  increased  employers* 
liabilities,  additional  regulations  for  factories  and 
workshops,  and  increased  inspectors,  the  prohibi- 
tion of  cheap  foreign  labourers  in  some  cases,  the 
taxing  of  ground  rents,  the  nationalization  of  the 
land — only  the  two  last  can  be  described  as  Socialistic  ; 
the  last  of  all,  which  was  included  in  the  political 
programme  of  the  Congress  a  couple  of  years  ago, 
out  of  keeping  with  the  rest  as  it  is,  being,  perhaps, 
rather  a  pious  opinion,  added  for  the  sake  of  effect, 
or  out  of  deference  to  the  prejudices  of  others,  than 
seriously  meant  or  desired. 

On  the  whole,  there  is  not  much  Socialism  mani- 
fest, whatever  may  be  the  latent  aspirations  of  the 
best-paid  sections  of  labour.  Still,  Socialism  has 
appeared  in  England,  and  it  is  spreading  amongst  the 
common  or  unskilled  labourers,  the  casually  em- 
ployed, and  the  unemployed,  including  the  displaced 
labourers,  and  indeed  amongst  the  displaced  and  the 
distressed  of  all  classes.  And  as  the  lower  grades  of 
labourers,  to  whom  specially  are  the  promises  of 
Socialism,  are  very  numerous,  and  have  got  votes, 
it  is  not  unlikely  that  socialistic  measures  for  their 
benefit  will  be  proposed  before  long  in  Parliament. 

As  to  this  portion  of  the  problem,  it  would  be  well 
for  the  State  to  anticipate  the  labourers.  It  is  its 
duty  to  help  the  more  helpless,  if  it  can,  without 
waiting  for  pressure.  "  The  true  art  of  the  states- 
man," as  a  German  writer  on  political  philosophy 
rightly  says,  "  will  lie  on  the  one  hand  in  trying  to 
prevent   the    members  of    the   organized   classes   of 


INTRODUCTION.  xl 


Vll 


labour  from  falling  into  the  unorganized  proletariate  ; 
and  on  the  other  in  assisting  as  many  as  possible  to 
rise  from  the  proletariate  into  the  organized  class 
where  they  can  obtain  a  comparatively  secure  subsist- 
ence;"'' an  art  which  I  will  add,  though  not  impossible, 
will  tax  our  statesmen's  resources  to  the  utmost. 


V. 

So  far  we  have  only  consitdered  Socialism  as  a  work- 
ing man's  question,  or  a  poor  man's  question.  But 
to  regard  it  as  solely  such  is  to  take  too  narrow 
a  view  of  the  subject.  Socialism  will  never  go  far  or 
accomplish  much  unless  it  has  promises  for  more 
than  the  merely  poor.  It  will  never  arouse  sufficient 
enthusiasm  ;  it  will  not  enlist  capacity  in  its  service, 
but  rather  repel  it  ;  it  will  not,  in  consequence,  acquire 
the  necessary  momentum. 

Most  certainly  modern  Socialism  as  conceived  by 
its  first  founders,  St.  Simon  and  his  school,  had  a 
larger  and  wider  aim  than  the  elevation  of  the  poorer 
classes.  That  indeed  was  one  of  its  express  aims, 
"The  ameliqration  of  the  condition,  material,  mental, 
and  moral,  of  the  poorer  classes."  But  it  had  a 
wider  and  more  comprehensive  ultimate  aim,  which 
embraced  the  former  one,  and  more,  namely  tlic 
general  reorganization  of  labour  and  the  distribution 
of  its  fruits  on  a  new  and  juster  scheme.  It  proposed 
to  place  every  capacity  in  its  fitting   field  of  labour 

*  Bluntschli's  "  Theory  of  the  .St.ite,"  Book  II.  ch.  xviii.     On 
the  "Survey  of  Modern  Classes." 


XiVlU  INTRODUCTION. 

and  to  reward  each  according  to  its  works,  which,  if 
it  could  have  been  done,  would  have  solved  what  is 
now  called  the  Labour  Question,  or  the  working  man's 
question,  and  the  larger  question  of  distribution  in 
general,  by  giving  to  every  one  his  due. 

The  old  Socialism  was  more  universal  than  the 
new  ;  it  addressed  itself  to  all  the  world,  including 
particularly  the  poor,  excluding  only  ihe  inheritors 
of  wealth,  and  them  but  partially.  It  strongly 
denied  equality  of  capacity,  but  desired  equality 
of  opportunity.  It  did  not  contemplate  equality 
of  reward,  which  it  conceived  to  be  unjust.  But 
by  the  new  Socialists  of  the  Social  Democracy  of 
Germany  and  elsewhere,  Socialism  is  thought  of 
mainly  as  a  labourers'  question,  and  a  general  levelling 
and  equalizing  is  what  appears  to  be  aimed  at, 
although  the  natural  course  of  social  evolution,  so 
often  appealed  to  by  Karl  Marx  and  the  Socialist 
A^riters  as  leading  to  their  ideal,  gives  no  ground  to 
expect  any  such  general  level.  The  tendencies  which 
according  to  the  Socialist  writers  must  irresistibly 
end  in  Socialism  give  no -hope  of  a  Socialism  of  the 
kind  desired  ;  they  are  not  in  the  direction  of  a 
Socialism  based  upon  equality,  but  of  inequality  ; 
they  do  not  point  to  the  realization  of  the  ideal  of 
the  Socialism  of  Karl  Marx,  but  rather  to  that  of  the 
St.  Simonians. 

The  new  Socialists  point  to  the  extension  of  the 
State's  functions  in  the  sphere  of  industry,  the  in- 
creasing concentration  of  capital  in  larger  masses,  the 
extension  of  the  principle  of  association,  as  signs  of 


INTRODUCTION.  xlix 

the  coming  of  Socialism  ;  they  tell  us  that  a  universal 
Socialism  viay  come  by  the  successive  absorption  by 
the  State  of  the  industries  most  suited  for  its  manage- 
ment, beginning  with  the  great  monopolies  ;  as  fast 
as  they  cover  the  field,  the  State  following  and  super- 
seding them.  But  if  Socialism  came  spontaneously 
in  this  way,  as  I  allow  that  in  part  it  mi^ht,  it  would 
not  be  likely  to  result  in  the  desired  equality,  for  the 
present  principle  of  payment  would  presumably  con- 
tinue in  all  such  extensions  of  Government  manage- 
ment, as  in  the  civil  service  and  all  the  public  services 
of  to -day.  The  notion  of  equal  remuneration  would 
thus  have  to  be  given  up  ;  but  then,  according  to  Dr. 
Schaiffle,  if  the  notion  of  equality  in  the  control  of 
the  work  and  equality  of  remuneration  be  given 
up,  the  "  spirit  of  democracy  is  scattered  to  the 
winds,  and  Socialism  has  no  further  charm  for  the 
masses." 

As  to  this  last,  I  am  by  no  means  certain  :  such 
Socialism  might  find  favour  with  the  masses,  especially 
if,  to  use  the  words  of  Professor  Sidgwick,  "  the 
principle  of  remijneration  now  adopted  in  respect  of 
Government  officials  were  retained,  while  at  the  same 
time  the  means  of  training  for  the  higher  kinds  of 
work  were  effectually  brought  within  the  reach  of  all 
classes  by  a  well-organized  system  of  free  education, 
liberally  supported  by  exhibitions  for  the  children  of 
the  poor.'" 

I   doubt    if  the    democracy  would   be  opposed  to 
inequality  of  remuneration  or  to  authoritative  control, 
*  •*  Principles  of  Political  Economy,''  Book  III,  ch.  vii.  §  4, 


1  INTRODUCTION. 

provided  there  was  equality  of  opportunity  from  tha 
beginning  of  each  one's  career  ;  for  the  father  who 
had  failed  to  reach  the  higher  position  would  feel  a 
sort  of  compensation  and  a  source  of  consolation  in 
the  better  chances  for  his  children.  He  would,  in 
some  sort,  feel  as  if  through  them  he  had  a  second 
chance,  while  the  blame  for  his  own  non-success 
would  lie  with  Nature,  and  could  not  be  charged  on 
Society  or  its  institutions.  But  whether  such  Socialism 
would  prove  popular  or  not,  it  is  perfectly  certain 
that  no  general  scheme  of  Socialism  grounded  on 
equality  has  any  chance  of  success,  because  the 
middle  and  the  upper  classes  would  be  opposed,  and 
what  is  more  significant,  a  very  large  class  or  section 
of  well-paid  labourers. 

At  the  present  there  are  two  separate  tendencies 
which  might  conceivably  converge  to  form  such  a 
Socialism,  which  would  be  St.  Simonian  in  essence, 
rather  than  the  Socialism  of  Karl  Marx  and  the  Social 
Democracy.  One  of  the  tendencies  is  the  conscious 
aim  on  the  part  of  the  State  at  raising  the  condition 
of  the  lower  classes  in  the  special  directions  noticed 
in  Chap.  IX. ;  the  other,  a  quite  different  tendency 
and  having  only  an  indirect  reference  to  the  poor  as 
such  ;  which  concerns  the  most  capable  of  the  whole 
nation — who  would  be  surer  of  suitable  employment 
than  at  present,  and  which  concerns  the  whole  of  the 
peop'e  who  would  be  gainers  by  having  fitting  fields 
open  for  their  various  abilities ;  and  certainly,  if  in- 
equality of  money  reward  must  continue,  as  in  the 
industrial  field  at  any  rate  it  must,  this  would  seem 


INTRODUCTION.  li 

the  best  principle  on  which  to  found  it.  It  would  be, 
if  not  absolutely  just,  which  is  an  impossible  ideal, 
a  less  unjust  principle  than  the  present,  which,  through 
inheritance,  largely  endows  incapacity  and  narrows 
the  field  of  opportunities  for  capacity. 

The  last  tendency  might  be  furthered  by  a  different 
one,  namely  the  tendency  of  the  State  to  extend  its 
function  in  the  domain  of  industry,  a  tendency  which 
undoubtedly  exists,  and  which  may  increase  in  future 
with  the  tendency  to  large  monopolies. 

If  Socialism  is  ever  to  succeed,  it  will  be  in  this 
form.  At  least  it  will  appear  first  in  this  form,  which 
while  retaining  the  best  of  the  present,  would  do  away 
with  much  social  injustice.  A  thousand  years  later 
the  Socialism  of  equality  may  be  possible  ;  but  much 
of  this  other  kind  is  possible  now.  It  is  not  Utopian, 
it  makes  due  concession  to  egoism ;  it  is  partly  in 
operation  now  as  respects  certain  departments  of  the 
public  service,  including  industrial  departments  ;  in 
the  Civil  Service,  the  Military  Service,  the  Educational 
Service,  even  in  the  Church.  It  was  more  fully 
realized  in  France  under  the  first  Napoleon,  especially 
as  respects  the  army.  Capacity  found  its  way  open 
to  command  in  it,  but  not  in  other  armies,  which  was 
the  chief  reason  of  its  extraordinary  success,  and 
why  it  entered  most  European  capitals  in  triumph. 
Bonapartism  was  thus  a  kind  of  experiment  on  St. 
Sinionian  lines  before  the  time  of  St.  Simon,  there 
being  much  in  common  (as  Roscher  says)  between 
the  two.' 

•  The  Catholic  Church  in  former  limes  affords  another  partial 


Hi  INTRODUCTION. 

Such  a  scheme  might,  perhaps,  not  be  a  bad  ideal 
goal — as  to  which,  however,  I  have  two  observations 
to  make.  First,  that  we  should  go  slowly  and  tenta- 
tively towards  it,  not  taking  a  second  step  till  the 
results  of  the  first  were  carefully  measured  and  known, 
a  thing  requiring  both  time  and  science ;  secondly, 
that  to  my  judgment  it  is  distinctly  a  case  where 
part,  as  it  would  be  more  possible  to  get  it,  would 
also  be  much  better  than  the  whole  ;  where  a  cor- 
recting and  supplementing  of  the  present  system, 
somewhat  on  the  lines  suggested  in  the  concluding 
chapters,  would  be  better  than  universal  state  manage- 
ment and  the  suppression  of  private  enterprise,  which 
the  St.  Simonian  Socialism  involves  no  less  than  the 
new  scheme  of  Collectivism. 

It  would  be  better  economically  to  leave  the 
largest  part  of  the  field  of  industry  in  the  hands  of 
private  enterprise,  both  as  a  stimulus  to  invention 
and  to  new  enterprise,  as  well  as  to  keep  Government 
management  up  to  the  mark  by  competition,  and  the 
contagion  of  energetic  example.  But,  secondly,  there 
are  nearly  as  grave  objections  to  the  abolition  of 
inheritance,  which  is  a  necessary  part  of  the  St. 
Simonian  scheme,  as  there  are  to  the  equalizing  of 
salaries  contemplated  by  the  Social  Democrats  (Col- 
lectivists).      The  abolition  of  inheritance   would  be 

example.  The  best  existing  capacity  was  in  her  hierarchy. 
Capacity  was  sought  for,  enhsted  in  her  service,  and  promoted, 
which  in  part  explains  her  predominance  in  the  Middle  Ages, 
as  she  was  intellectually  superior ;  was  really,  compared  with  the 
rest  of  society,  as  the  head  to  the  body. 


INTRODUCTION.  liii 

unjust  as  well  as  contrary  to  the  deepest  instinct  of 
human  nature.  Let  it  be  granted  that  the  present 
law  of  inheritance  works  injustice  ;  its  proposed 
abolition  would  create  an  opposite  injustice. 

The  complete  abolition  of  inheritance  would  be 
unjust.  In  any  case  it  would  be  inexpedient,  unless 
human  nature  were  altered.  Because  society  will  not 
get  from  an  able  man  his  best  efforts,  unless  it  gives 
him  first,  the  hope  of  a  correspondingly  greater 
reward,  and,  secondly,  unless  it  allows  him  to  make 
a  provision  for  his  children  with  his  savings.  Most 
certainly  men  in  general  labour  for  their  children  far 
more  than  for  themselves  ;  and  if  inheritance  were 
abolished,  all  the  extra  energy  and  all  the  extra 
wealth  due  to  this  deep  spring  of  effort  would  disap- 
pear. In  the  industrial  field,  at  least,  it  would  mean 
diminished  production,  unless  human  nature  had 
changed,  and  men  had  learned  to  love  each  other, 
and  to  labour  strenuously  for  the  good  of  each  other. 

The  present  system  no  doubt  both  works  injustice, 
and  also  indirectly  checks  production,  by  keeping 
back  the  able,  while  it  enables  people  who  do  no  work 
to  levy  rent  and  interest  on  the  general  revenue  of 
the  country.  And  here  again  the  middle  course,  as 
recommended  hereafter,  would  seem  to  be  the  only 
practical  solution  of  the  perplexing  question  ;  the  only 
conciliation  of  the  social  antinomy,  that  both  the 
opposite  views  of  Socialism  and  the  present  system 
are  wrong  as  regards  inheritance. 

I  am  aware  that  the  present  Socialists  claim  it  as  a 
great  point  in  their  favour  that  they  do  not  propose 


liv  INTRODUCTION. 

to  do  away  with  inheritance.  In  reality,  to  touch  it 
would  be  a  mere  work  of  supererogation  on  their 
part,  because  the  salaries  with  them  being  equal,  or 
nearly  so,  no  one  would  be  likely  to  have  much  to 
leave  to  his  children.  But  if  considerable  inequality 
of  salaries  were  allowed,  there  would  be  a  reason,  as 
the  St.  Simonians  saw,  for  abolishing  inheritance,  in 
order  to  prevent  inequality  from  becoming  excessive. 

VI. 

The  immediate  aim,  then,  and  provisional  social 
goal,  till  time  and  spontaneous  natural  evolution 
teach  us  more,  would  seem  to  be  something  like 
what  is  given  in  the  concluding  portion  of  the  follow- 
ing pages  ;  part  of  it  having  reference  to  the  working- 
classes  and  the  poor,  part  not  referring  to  class,  as 
such,  but  to  capacity,  including  a  large  part  of  the 
natural  ability  without  means  to  make  its  way,  the 
special  fostering  of  which  would  be  both  for  the 
general  good  and  for  the  good  of  the  working-classes, 
whose  ranks  would  contain  a  large  part  of  it. 

The  proposals  which  specially  refer  to  the  working- 
classes  and  the  poor  are  treated  of  under  the  heads  of 
co-operative  production,  the  creation  of  small  owners 
of  land,  the  regulation  of  factories  and  workshops,  the 
proposed  maximum  working  day ;  those  referring  to 
the  nation  generally,  including  the  working-classes, 
under  the  heads  of  taxation,  especially  of  inheritances, 
free  education,  the  extension  of  Government  manage- 
ment in  the  industrial  sphere,  especially  where  mono- 


INTRODUCTION.  Iv 

polies  exist,  or  are  likely  to  exist ;  the  State  having 
the  advantage  over  monopolists  of  being  a  "  moral 
person  "  not  interested  in  unduly  raising  prices  or 
lowering  wages  to  make  extra  profits. 

In  addition  to  a  general  criticism  of  Socialism, 
certain  current  proposals  short  of  Socialism,  but  yet 
in  the  Socialist  direction,  are  considered  ;  schemes 
for  raising  wages,  for  shortening  hours  of  labour, 
for  giving  work  to  the  unemployed,  as  well  as  one 
for  doing  both  of  the  latter,  by  the  examination  of 
which  I  hope  to  make  my  position  clearer  and  also 
to  define  more  narrowly  the  limits  of  the  action  of 
the  State,  whether  by  legislation  or  administration. 

The  programme  recommended  can  hardly  be  con- 
sidered a  very  extensive  one.  But  it  is  certainly  as 
much  as  opinion  is  ready  for.  I  believe  it  practi- 
cable, which  cannot  be  said  either  of  the  new  scheme 
of  Collectivism  or  of  the  old,  and  in  some  respects 
superior.  Socialism,  or  yet  of  some  other  schemes 
adverted  to  and  criticized  ;  the  full  reasons  for  which 
will  in  due  course  appear ;  so  much  having  been 
here  entered  into  chiefly  to  give  the  reader  some 
notion  in  advance  of  the  scope  and  general  character 
of  the  work,  as  well  as  of  the  main  topics  treated, 
and  the  chief  issues  raised  on  a  subject  that,  without 
doubt,  will  be  one  of  importance  for  a  long  time  to 
come,  as  at  present  it  is  one  that  engages  the  attention 
of  most  thinking  persons. 


SOCIALISM    NEW  AND    OLD. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE   FORMS   OF   SOCIALISM. 

Modern  Socialism  had  its  origin  some  seventy  years  ^ 
ago  in  France,  under  the  initiative  of  St.  Simon.  If-  '^ '" 
took  a  definite  form  from  his  school  about  the  time 
of  the  July  Revolution  of  1S30  ;  but  after  drawing  to 
itself  distinguished  converts,  and  exciting  much  atten- 
tion for  a  time,  it  soon  passed  away  as  impracticable. 
It  rose  again  some  time  before,  and  particularly  during, 
the  memorable  year  1848.  This  time  it  took  more 
specific  form  as  a  scheme  for  the  reorganization  of 
Labour,  but  also  a  threatening  form  as  a  revolu- 
tionary force.  In  its  former  character  it  was  found 
impracticable,  after  partial  trial  ;  in  the  latter  it  was 
suppressed  by  the  sword,  after  a  terrible  insurrection 
in  Paris.  This  time  it  was  thought  it  had  finally 
died.  It  was  not  so.  It  rose  again  in  Germany 
about  1862,  increased  in  strength,  and  fortified  with 
stronger  arguments,  in  process  of  time  it  crossed  the 
Atlantic,  and  made  many  converts  in  America ; 
and  within    a    comparatively  recent  period   (almost 


2  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

within  the  past  ten  years)  it  has  made  its 
appearance  in  England,  where  it  is  making  con- 
siderable progress.  At  the  present  time  it  is  a 
wide-spread,  almost  a  universal,  movement,  which 
showf.  itself  in  every  civilized  and  Christian  land 
where  the  same  economic  and  social  conditions  meet ; 
and  it  is  certain  that  it  is  a  movement  that  will  not 
die  without  leaving  important  results  behind  it  in  the 
sphere  of  practice. 

If  the  question  be  asked.  What  is  Socialism  ?  it  is 
impossible  to  give  a  single  definition  that  would  find 
general  acceptance,  because  the  word  is  used  by 
writers  of  authority  in  three  different  senses,  in  each 
of  which  again  it  is  somewhat  vaguely  applied. 

In  the  widest  sense  of  the  word,  Socialism  is  any 
scheme  of  social  relations  which  has  in  view  a  more 
equal  distribution  of  wealth,  or  the  preventing  too 
great  inequality,  in  whatever  way  this  be  effected, 
whether  by  State  action,  the  voluntary  efforts  of 
individuals  directed  towards  that  end,  Church  action, 
philanthropy,  or  any  other  means ;  in  which  wide 
sense  of  the  word  Socialism  embraces  many  social 
phenomena  and  movements,  both  in  the  present  and 
in  the  past.  Thus  in  the  present  it  would  embrace 
co-operative  production,  the  communistic  experi- 
ments in  the  United  States  and  elsewhere.  Christian 
Socialism,  contemporary  legislation  to  ameliorate 
the  condition  of  small  tenant  farmers  and  the  work- 
ing classes  generally,  and  even,  if  we  set  aside  the 
means  to  be  employed,  contemporary  anarchists' 
final  aims.  In  this  wide  sense  of  the  word,  ancient 
laws   and    customs    aiming    at    the    prevention    of 


THE   FORMS   OF  SOCIALISM.  3 

poverty  or  of  great  inequality,  the  various  risings  of 
the  people  for  the  same  ends  in  England,  in  France, 
and  in  Germany,  together  with  the  ideas,  and  senti- 
ments that  prompted  them,  might  all  be  styled 
Socialistic,  and  have  been  so  described  by  Laveleye, 
Roscher,  and  other  writers. 

There  is  a  second  sense  of  the  word,  which 
is  also  perhaps  the  most  usual  sense,  in  which 
it  covers  only  a  portion  of  the  above  field  of  mean- 
ing. In  this  sense,  the  word  is  applied  only  to  the 
aim  and  endeavour  of  the  State  to  secure,  by  laws 
or  institutions,  a  greater  equality  of  conditions,  or 
to  prevent  too  great  inequality,  in  which  sense  the 
laws  of  Solon,  equally  with  certain  legislation  of 
to-day,  the  Jewish  Jubilee,  and  even  the  English 
Poor  Law  would  be  Socialism.  In  this  sense  the 
legislation  of  the  Constituent  Assembly,  and 
of  tlie  Convention  during  the  French  Revolution, 
which  took  from  the  nobles  to  give  to  the  peasants, 
was  Socialism,  as  the  aim  of  the  late  Emperor 
William  to  make  a  provision  for  the  workman  in  time  of 
old  age  and  sickness,  by  taking  part  of  the  insurance 
fund  from  the  employers,  was  socialistic'  But  in  this 
sense,  voluntary  co-operative  production  would  not  be 
Socialistic;  existing  communistic  attempts  would  not 

'  We  might  perhaps  extend  this  sense  of  the  word  to  covet 
the  case  of  customs  in  the  Village  Conmiunities  acquiesced  in 
by  the  Heads,  even  before  there  was  any  State  or  Law  in  the 
strict  sense,  when  such  customs  aimed,  as  they  often  did,  at 
preventing  incquahty.  For  though  there  was  no  State  there  was 
government,  recognized  authority,  and  custom  held  in  place  of 
law. 


4  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND  OLD. 

be  Socialistic ;  even  though  both  contain  the  central 
aim  of  Socialism,  and  the  one  thing  common  to  all 
forms  of  Socialism  at  all  times,  namely,  the  aim  at  the 
diminution   of  inequality.     In    this    sense  loans   by 
the  State  to  associations  of  working  men  of  capital 
at   less  than  current   interest  would    be  Socialistic  ; 
and  the  recent  agrarian  legislation  respecting  land- 
lord  and   tenant   in    Ireland  was  so  far  Socialistic, 
that  it  was  designed,  and  had  for  effect,  to  benefit 
the  tenant  at  the  expense  of  the  landlord.     But  the 
undertaking  by  the  Government  of  an  industry  or  a 
service  like  the  Telegraph  or  the  Postal  Service  is  not 
necessarily  Socialistic,  if  it  be  done  for  the  general 
convenience,    and    without    thought   of  diminishing 
inequality  ;    though  the   farther    such    extension    is 
carried  the  more  it  tends  to  become  so,  by  its  nar- 
rowing    the     field     of    private   enterprise,    and    by 
consequence  the  profits  of  the  capitalist  class,  and 
by  coming  nearer  to  the  extreme  Socialist's    ideal 
of  universal    state-directed  industry.     Moreover,  so 
far  as  the  extension  of  Government  functions  in  the 
economical  sphere  is  accompanied  by  a  classification 
of  workers  according  to  merit,  and  furnishes  oppor- 
tunities to  talent  without  means,  the  nearer  it  comes 
to  the  ideal  of  St.  Simon,  who  is  generally  regarded 
as  the  founder  of  modern  Socialism. 

It  is  in  this  second  sense  of  the  word  that  it  is 
generally  used  by  writers  of  authority.  Thus,  M.  Janet 
defines  Socialism  to  be  "  every  doctrine  which  believes 
it  to  be  the  business  of  the  State  to  correct  the  in- 
equalities of  riches  that  exist  amongst  men,  and  to 
establish    the    equilibrium    legally   by   taking    from 


THE   FORMS   OF   SOCIALISM,  5 

those  who  have  too  much  to  give  to  those  who  have 
not  enough,  and  to  do  this  in  a  permanent  manner,  and 
not  merely  in  particular  cases,  such  as  that  of  a  general 
distress  or  a  public  calamity."  ^  Similar  but  fuller  is  the 
definition  of  Leroy-Beaulieu  :  "  Socialism  is  a  generic 
term  which  expresses  certain  modes  of  interference 
by  the  State  in  the  relations  between  producers,  or 
between  producers  and  consumers.  This  inter- 
ference has  not  for  its  object  solely  security,  fidelity 
to  engagements  freely  entered  into  by  individuals  ;  it 
proposes  to  rectify  or  to  correct  social  inequalities, 
to  modify  the  natural  course  of  things,  to  substitute  for 
contracts  whose  terms  have  been  fully  debated  and 
freely  agreed  to,  official  types  of  contracts,  to  come 
to  the  aid  of  the  party  reputed  to  be  feeble,  and  to 
hinder  the  contractor  reputed  to  be  strong  from 
drawing  the  whole  of  the  possible  advantages,  natural 
or  economic."  To  which  he  adds  that  "  Socialism 
proceeds  by  way  of  regulations  or  by  competition  of 
the  State  with  private  industries."^ 

This  is  also  the  sense  in  which  M.  de  Lavelcye 
generally  uses  the  word.  In  his  work  on  "  The 
Socialism  of  to-day  "  (Introd.  p.  xv.),  he  says  :  "  Every 
Socialistic  doctrine  aims  at  introducing  greater 
equality  into  social  conditions  ;  and,  secondly,  it  tries 
to  realize  these  reforms  by  the  action  of  the  law  or 
the  State."  But  even  he  occasionally  uses  the  word 
with  a  wider  application,  as  where  he  speaks  of  the 
Nihilistic  Socialism  of  Bakunin,  which  not  merely  rc- 

'  "  Les  Orisines  du  Socialisme  Contcmporain." 
•''  "  Le  Collectivisme." 


6  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

pudiates  all  State  action,  but  aims  at  the  destruction 
of  the  State  as  the  greatest  enemy  of  a  true  Socialistic 
community.  It  is  in  this  second  sense  which  M.  de 
Laveleye  mostly  adopts  of  State  Socialism,  that 
the  word  will  be  generally  used  throughout  this 
book,  though  it  will  be  found  convenient  to  employ 
it  occasionally  in  the  first  sense,  as  well  as  fre- 
quently in  a  third  sense,  to  be  now  specially  pointed 
out. 

In  this  third  sense,  Socialism  is  that  system  eco- 
nomic and  political,  in  which  the  production  of  wealth 
is  carried  on  solely  by  the  State,  as  the  collective 
owner  of  the  land  and  instruments  of  production,  in- 
stead of  by  private  capitalist  employers  or  companies  ; 
while  the  distribution  in  like  manner  is  made  by  the 
State  on  some  assumed  principles  of  justice,  which  give 
to  each  in  proportion  to  his  work,  instead  of  being 
as  now  determined  largely  and  immediately  by  con- 
tracts, and  ultimately  by  laws  of  property  and  in- 
heritance. This,  the  only  true  Socialism  according  to 
its  adherents,  is  now  generally  called  Collectivism,  to 
denote  the  collective  ownership  or  ownership  by 
the  State,  as  the  representative  of  all,  of  the  land  and 
instruments  of  production.  It  distinguishes  itself 
from  Communism,  inasmuch  as  it  admits  of  private 
property  in  articles  of  consumption,  and  to  a  certain 
limited  extent,  of  inequality  of  shares,  accumulations, 
and  inheritance.  Only  it  suppresses  private  enterprise, 
it  will  not  allow  individuals  to  use  their  accumula- 
tions to  set  others  to  labour  for  them,  with  a  view  to 
make  profit  from  their  labour,  nor  to  lend  for  the 
sake  of  interest,  nor  to  let  for  the  sake  of  rent  or 


THE   FORMS   OF   SOCIALISM.  7 

hire,  nor  in  any  way  to  make  private  gains  from 
their  superfluous  goods  ;  because  by  these  means  great 
inequality  might  come  back,  and  it  is  a  principal 
aim  of  the  new  Socialism  not  only  to  extinguish 
great  inequality,  but  to  prevent  for  ever  its  return. 

To  avoid  confusion,  it  will  be  well  to  note  the  three 
senses  of  the  word  Socialism.  And  itwill  be  also  well  to 
note  the  relation  between  the  three  kinds  of  Socialism. 
What  is  common,  the  generic  feature  of  all,  is  the 
aim  at  greater  equality  of  social  conditions,  in  the 
first  case  to  be  attained  by  any  means,  in  the  second 
and  third  to  be  attained  and  maintained  by  the  State. 
In  the  first  sense.  Socialism  is  as  old  as  the  world, 
old  as  the  rudest  form  of  society,  and  in  fact  in  primi- 
tive simple  societies  it  was  very  generally  realized 
in  considerable  measure.  In  the  second  sense  in 
which  Socialism  is  taken  up  by,  and  made  an  aim 
of,  the  State,  it  is  also  very  old,  though  this  form 
now  called  Slate  Socialism  has  received  a  great 
extension  in  our  century,  partly  from  a  widened 
spirit  of  philanthropy  and  the  awakening  of  public 
conscience,  and  partly  from  a  spirit  of  apprehen- 
sion, but  chiefly  owing  to  the  increasing  political 
power  of  the  people  since  the  French  Revolution, 
which  taught  an  ever-memorable  lesson  to  ruling 
classes,  and  for  the  first  time  showed  to  the  modern 
world  the  power  of  the  people  when  joined  in  a 
common  cause.  The  interferences  of  the  State  were 
at  first  for  the  protection  of  operatives  in  factories  and 
workshops  ;  they  have  since  been  extended  to  mining, 
shipping,  and  all  kinds  of  industries,  as  the  influence 
and  voice  of  the  people  became  more  felt  in  Parlia- 


8  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

ment,  while  within  a  comparatively  recent  period, 
or  since  1870,  there  has  been  legislative  interference 
between  landlord  and  tenant  in  Ireland,  to  fix  rents 
in  the  interests  of  the  tenants,  and  to  narrow  the 
landlords'  rights  ;  in  fact  to  narrow  the  sphere  of  so- 
called  Free  Contracts,  and  this  kind  of  protective  State 
Socialism,  this  interference  with,  and  restriction  of, 
freedom  of  contracts,  is  likely  to  increase,  as  well  as 
the  State  Socialism  involved  in  the  extension  of  the 
States'  functions  in  the  sphere  of  industrial  under- 
takings, the  housing  of  the  poor,  the  provision  of  free 
education,  etc. 

It  is  partly  from  the  extent  of  this  tendency,  that 
extreme  Socialism  or  Collectivism  derives  such 
strength  and  plausibility  as  it  has.  This  species  of 
Socialism  which  implies  collective  ownership  and  co- 
operative labour,  it  should  be  noted,  is  essentially  a 
modern  thing,  which  could  not  have  been  conceived 
before  the  great  industrial  revolution  of  which  it  was 
a  direct  result.  Collectivism  contemplates  the  collec- 
tive ownership  of  land  and  capital  (chiefly  the  latter), 
and  production  on  the  great  scale,  which  last  was  the 
result,  and  the  essence  of  the  industrial  revolution. 
Before  that  event  there  were  very  few  great  capi- 
talist employers  with  whom  there  could  have  been  a 
quarrel  as  to  the  division  of  the  product.  The 
worker,  in  general,  owned  his  own  small  capital,  the 
necessary  instruments  of  his  craft,  and  he  was  inde- 
pendent of  an  employer.  Socialism  relating  to  the 
land,  or  agrarian  Socialism,  there  always  was,  as  well 
as  a  sort  of  general  and  intermittent  quarrel  between 
rich  and  poor,  but  there  were  few  great  capitalists 


THE   FORMS   OF   SOCIALISM.  9 

outside  the  commercial  class,  and  comparatively  few 
cases  in  which  the  labouring  classes  could  point 
distinctly  to  any  one  but  the  landlord,  or  perhaps  the 
small  dealer  who  had  given  them  credit,  as  having 
made  a  profit  out  of  their  labour  or  their  necessities. 
It  was  otherwise  when  the  artisan  portion  of  them 
were  compelled  from  want  of  the  necessary  capital  to 
sell  their  labour  to  the  great  capitalist  employer  for  so 
much  a  day  or  week,  when  this  sum  was  in  general,  as 
economists  affirmed,  not  much  above  bare  subsistence 
rate,  and  when  they  saw  the  master,  who  not  long 
before  had  been  on  the  same  social  level  as  themselves, 
grow  rich  in  consequence  ;  for  they  did  not  care  to  dis- 
tingui.-h  the  cases  where  the  riches  might  have  been 
more  due  to  his  business  genius  and  energy  than  to  the 
exploitation  and  under-payment  of  their  labour.  Here 
was  alu  ays  matter  for  dispute,  and  often  real  and  great 
grievances  on  the  side  of  the  workers,  and  from  this 
new  situation  was  born  the  standing  quarrel  between 
Capital  and  Labour,  which  fills  the  whole  century,  the 
interferences  of  the  Legislature  on  the  side  of  Labour, 
Trades  Unionism,  which  tries  to  strengthen  its  hands  ; 
and  the  new  Socialism,  which  seeks  to  put  an  end  to 
the  feud  by  the  abolition  of  the  individual  capitalistic 
system,  and  the  replacing  of  it  by  the  collective 
ownership  of  the  State. 

The  new  Socialists,  the  Collectivists,  will  not  honour 
with  the  name  of  Socialist  any  one  who  does  not 
accept  the  whole  of  their  programme.  The  half-way 
.systems  and  measures  will  not  do.  They  say,  in  fact, 
that  they  arc  even  mischievous  as  tending  to  prolong 
the  present  system   of  industrial   anarchy   based   on 


10  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

spoliation  and  competition.  Co-operative  production 
will  not  do,  even  if  State-aided.  It  would  prolong  the 
reign  of  competition,  and  the  competitive  system  must 
wholly  cease. 

Collectivism  is,  they  say,  the  only  system  that  is 
thorough  going,  coherent,  and  logical,  as  opposed  to 
the  different  partial  stop-gap  systems, — co-operation, 
legislative  interference,  etc., — which  would  be  either 
wholly  futile,  or  barely  temporary  palliatives.  As 
opposed  to  the  existing  system,  it  is  the  only  one  at 
once  rational  and  founded  on  justice.  The  land  and 
the  mineral  wealth  beneath  it,  should  evidently  belong 
to  all.  They  were  Nature's  gift  to  the  human  race,  no 
more  intended  to  be  appropriated  by  a  few  than  the 
common  sunlight,  air,  or  water.  And  in  like  manner 
as  regards  the  instruments  for  the  production  of  the 
means  of  life.  In  former  times,  the  land  did  actually 
belong  to  the  community,  and  in  a  time  not  remote 
the  instruments  of  production  did  belong  to  the 
workers.  It  is  not  so  now.  The  agricultural  labourer 
on  the  land  has  become  divorced  from  ownership  :  the 
labourer  in  the  towns  no  longer  possesses  the  instru- 
ments of  his  craft.  He  is  dependent  on  the  will  and  the 
employment  of  another  for  his  livelihood.  The  capital 
which  enables  the  capitalist  to  employ  him,  more- 
over, is  itself  the  result  of  the  spoliation  of  labourers 
past  and  present.  These  are  great  evils,  for  which 
Collectivism  is  the  only  remedy  that  would  beat  once 
just,  efficacious,  and  that  would  bring  finality  with  it. 

Moreover,  it  is  in  harmony  with  existing  facts  and 
steadily  growing  tendencies  all  pointing  to  it.  The 
Slate  already  occupies,  to  the  general  advantage  and 


THE  FORMS   OF   SOCIALISM.  II 

satisfaction,  a  portion  of  the  field  of  enterprise  and  in- 
dustry, within  which  competition  is  abolished.  Let 
it  occupy  the  entire  field.  It  already  regulates,  and 
it  tends  ever  more  and  more  to  regulate,  the  industries 
it  does  not  occupy  which  are  carried  on  in  factories, 
mines,  and  workshops.  Let  it  put  an  end  to  the 
evil  necessity  of  regulating  by  substituting  its  own 
action  for  the  private  enterprise  that  requires  so  much 
regulating  to  protect  the  labourers  or  the  public. 
Let  it  organize  all  the  necessary  labour  as  it  already 
does  a  part,  and  let  it  apportion  their  shares  to  all 
according  to  the  rules  of  justice. 


II. 

Such  are  the  two  kinds  of  Socialism  that  chiefly 
concerns  us,  the  one  begun  and  extending,  the  other 
existing  only  as  aim  and  ideal.  With  respect  to  this 
second,  or  Collectivism,  which  aims  at  extending  and 
universalizing  the  first,  or  State  Socialism,  as  the 
State  may  not  have  the  will  or  desire  to  go  so  far,  or 
not  to  do  so  at  once,  or  soon,  we  are  led  to  a  further 
division  of  Socialists  into  the  Revolutionary  Socialists, 
who  aim  at  altering  the  existing  State  by  getting 
the  control  of  it  by  violence,  and  thereafter  ani- 
mating it  by  their  own  revolutionary  spirit  in  order 
to  effect  their  purposes  ;  and  the  Opportunist  or 
Evolutionary  Socialists,  who  think  the  existing  State 
slowly  improved  or  widened  in  its  functions,  or  even 
taking  it  as  it  stands  with  its  present  disposition  and 
the  opportunities  offered  by  the  existing  diversity  of 
party  interests,  may  serve  to  bring  in  Socialism  by 


12  SOCIALISM    NEW   AND   OLD. 

instalments.  The  programme  of  the  Evolutionary 
Collectivists  coincides  to  some  extent  with  that  of 
the  State  Socialists,  though  the  latter  does  not 
specifically  aim  at  collective  ownership,  or  at  any 
more  definite  aim  than  greater  justice  or  greater 
equality,  whether  of  condition  or  of  opportunity. 

The  Revolutionary  Socialists,  not  numerous  in 
England,  but  powerful  on  the  Continent,  think  it 
hopeless  to  expect  anything  from  middle-class 
Parliaments,  composed  largely  of  rich  men,  or  men  in 
sympathy  with  these,  whose  interests  are  opposed  to 
the  changes  they  have  in  view.  They  think  the 
struggle  between  the  rich  and  poor  must  be  end- 
less so  long  as  the  rich  hold  the  Government,  make 
the  laws,  and  direct  the  policy  of  the  State ;  and  for 
the  poor  an  endless  struggle  is  endless  defeat. 
Events  or  a  crisis  must  be  forced  and  soon.  It  is  a  ques- 
tion which  concerns  the  present  generation,  when  an 
opportunity  arises.  Force  has  been  the  great  hastencr 
of  events,  the  sword  the  great  severer  of  hopeless  knots. 
Great  movements  have  invariably  led  to  the  sword, 
and  great  issues  have  been  always  settled  by  it,  not 
by  appeals  to  reason,  conscience,  or  humanity.  And 
the  great  quarrel  between  rich  and  poor,  capital 
and  labour,  between  the  dominant  classes  and  the 
hungry  people  can  be  settled  in  no  other  way.  The 
antagonism  of  interests  is  too  great,  the  evils  suffered 
by  the  many,  and  their  sense  of  injustice,  daily 
deepening,  is  too  great,  to  allow  them  to  wait.  It 
is  idle  to  expect  the  rich  to  surrender  property  or 
position  of  their  own  accord  ;  if  the  working  classes 
do  not  conquer  them,  and  do  not  unite  for  the  purpose, 


THE  FORMS  OF   SOCIALISM.  1 3 

they  will  never  be  better.  The  rich  will  hold  them  in 
subjection  for  ever.  It  is  for  them  who  have  strength 
and  justice  on  their  side  to  force  the  present  posi- 
tion ;  and  that  requires  Revolution. 

The  other  Socialists  are  more  practical.  They 
distrust  sudden  and  violent  revolutions,  which  take 
one  step  forward  and  two  backward,  by  leading  to 
extreme  reaction.  They  think  that  the  State  is  in  all 
civilized  countries  becoming  more  suitable  for  the 
attainment  of  their  ends,  is  becoming  more  socialistic 
and  more  democratic.  They  think  that,  by  further  poli- 
tical reforms,  by  the  introduction  into  Parliament  or 
Chamber,  of  men  of  culture,  conscience,  and  capacity, 
men  of  public  spirit,  or  even  men  expressly  sent 
to  advocate  the  interests  of  labour,  they  can  get 
more  and  more  socialistic  measures  passed.  They 
reckon,  too,  on  the  great  influence  of  impartial 
outside  forces  on  public  opinion,  and  the  changed 
sentiment  appearing  in  literature,  in  the  press,  the 
churches,  and  even  in  law  as  judicially  interpreted, 
and  apart  from  legislation. 

In  England  Socialism,  so  far  as  it  comes  in  at  all, 
"will  probably  come  in  this  way.  Our  system  of 
party  government  will  give  it  certain  opportunities. 
Each  party  will  take  up  a  portion  of  the  Socialist 
programme.  The  Tory  landowner  will  defend  the 
workers  in  the  great  towns  against  the  oppression  of 
Capital,  while  the  Liberal  employer  will  take  up  the 
cause  of  the  agricultural  labourer  in  the  country.  The 
capitalist  will  see  no  objection  to  additional  taxation  on 
landed  property,  and  he  will  assist  the  tenant  farmers 
in  Ireland,  Scotland,  and  Wales,  to  become  owners  of 


14  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

their  holdings  without  too  rigidly  regarding  the 
landlord's  rights  ;  while  the  landlords  will  be  willing 
to  lessen  the  working  hours  of  the  labourers,  to  inquire 
into  and  remedy  their  grievances,  and  to  try  experi- 
ments on  their  behalf  at  the  cost  of  the  capitalist,  as 
well  as  to  extend  Employers'  Liabilities,  and  make  it 
less  easy  for  the  "  corsairs  of  commerce,"  the  bucan- 
neers  of  industry,  the  great  Monopolist  and  Company 
Promoter  to  prey  on  the  property  of  the  weak  and  un- 
wary. It  is  possible,  too,  that  the  great  outside  inte- 
rests, as  the  Church,  Law,  Literature,  so  far  as  they 
are  independent,  may  throw  their  weight  against  both 
landlords  and  capitalists,  as  well  from  a  sense  of 
justice  as  to  conciliate  the  Fourth  Estate.  It  would 
be  rather  a  change  of  policy,  at  least  on  the  part  of  the 
two  former,  but,  if  not  quite  from  considerations  of 
justice,  it  may  be  thought  prudent  to  be  on  the  side 
of  the  growing  power  that  may  one  day  be  supreme, 
and  thus  all  things  duly  considered,  the  prospects  of 
Socialism,  bound  up  as  they  are  with  Democracy, 
are  not  other  than  hopeful  in  these  countries. 

In  France,  where  class  antagonism  is  deep,  where 
the  people  are  fiery  and  warlike,  where  each  genera- 
tion in  Paris  since  the  Revolution  has  been  once 
at  least  behind  the  barricade,  the  introduction  of 
Socialism  may  not  improbably  be  attempted  once 
again  by  the  sword  ;  a  course  very  unlikely  to  lead  to 
the  Socialists'  goal,  unless,  indeed,  the  new  Caesar 
which  the  resulting  chaos  would  probably  necessitate, 
should  be  imbued  with  Socialistic  sentiments,  and 
should  try  to  realize  part  of  their  programme. 

In   Germany,   where,  though  Socialism    is  widely 


THE   FORMS   OF   SOCIALISM.  1 5 

spread,  the  existing  State  is  strong,  and,  largely 
impersonated  in  the  Emperor,  reposes  on  the  na- 
tional affections,  Socialism  will  be  slowly  introduced 
by  the  Emperor  and  his  Chancellor,  or  by  their  succes- 
sors, in  accordance  with  the  traditional  policy  of  the 
HohenzoUern  monarchs,  since  the  time  of  Frederick 
the  Great,  to  favour  and  protect  the  people  whose 
strength  and  courage  are  so  necessary  to  the  existence 
of  a  great  military  state.  There  the  sovereign  is  a 
power  above  the  middle-class  and  the  landlords.  He 
has  the  will,  if  not  the  power,  to  do  justice  between 
the  antagonistic  interests,  and  he  is  friendly  to  the 
working-classes.  The  power  of  the  great  middle 
and  monied  class  in  Germany,  though  considerable 
and  growing,  is  much  less  than  it  is  in  England 
or  America  ;  less  even  than  it  is  in  France  ;  and 
accordingly  it  is  probable  that  the  qualified  Socialism 
that  the  late  Emperor  and  Prince  Bismarck  have  so 
persistently  pursued  will  be  realized  eventually  by 
the  State  itself  in  spite  of  middle-class  opposition. 
State  Socialism,  much  farther  than  would  be  possible 
in  England,  would  be  suited  to  a  people  that  already 
has  the  species  of  State  Socialism  implied  in  a  nation 
in  arms,  periodically  withdrawn  from  industry  and 
supported  during  the  time,  by  the  national  taxes. 

It  is  more  difficult  to  offer  any  forecast  as  to 
America,  the  other  great  ccmntry  where  Socialism 
has  appeared,  and,  as  is  proved  by  the  Chicago  Anar- 
chists' riots  as  well  as  by  other  signs,  is  making  way. 
As  a  fact,  many  of  the  labourers  are  dissatisfied  with 
their  condition,  and  many  in  the  middle  class  are 
aggrieved  by  the  corruption  of  the  great  corporations, 


l6  SOCIALISM    NEW   AND   OLD. 

by  the  spread  of  vast  monopolies,  "  Syndicates,"  and 
"  Trusts,"  while  the  comparatively  low  level  of  political 
morality  makes  legislative  reforms  difficult.  The 
Capitalist  has  in  America  developed  into  colossal  pro- 
portions. The  richest  men  the  world  has  seen  since 
the  latter  time  of  the  Roman  Republic  are  there. 
Capitalism  has  most  fully  flowered,  has  reached  its 
highest  development  there,  and  there  is  only  want- 
ing a  hungry  people,  joined  to  a  greatly  dissatisfied 
one,  to  have  all  the  elements  of  an  early  explosion 
prepared.  When  we  add  that  society  in  America  was 
tolerably  homogeneous  less  than  a  century  ago 
that  even  in  1835,  when  De  Tocqueville  wrote  his 
"  Democracy  in  America,"  it  presented  marked 
equality  of  conditions,  and  that  it  has  now  arranged 
itself  into  the  hierarchically  graded  form  of 
Western  Europe,  with  a  mighty  plutocracy  at 
the  top  of  the  pyramid,  a  rich  middle  class  below, 
and  a  proletariate  at  the  bottom,  there  are 
not  wanting  causes  of  apprehension.  Happily,  the 
wage- earners  are  as  yet  well  paid,  though  prices  are 
dear,  and  the  lowest  social  stratum  is  not  as  yet 
large. 

But  Socialism  and  Socialistic  theories  are  spread- 
ing, and  unless  there  is  legislation  in  behalf  of  labour 
there  may  come  convulsions  in  America  as  soon  as 
or  sooner  than  in  any  other  country  :  because  the 
American  people,  like  the  French,  are  warlike  and 
spirited,  as  they  have  shown  by  the  two  tremendous 
wars  within  a  century,  the  first  for  Liberty,  the  second 
for  the  Union.  That  the  majority  would  be  ready 
to  fight  for  Justice  if  they  thought  themselves  treated 


THE  FORMS   OF   SOCIALISM.  1/ 

unjustly,  there  cannot  be  a  doubt.  Then  the  gene- 
rality are  very  intelligent,  education  is  diffused,  and 
every  one  reads  at  least  the  newspaper.  Moreover 
it  is  a  country  of  fast  Evolution.  The  slow  steps  of 
social  evolution  in  the  Old  Continent  are  quickened. 
Parts  of  the  process  are  abridged.  Events  come  to  a 
head  sooner.  On  all  of  which  grounds  I  should  look 
for  the  Social  Question  to  be  brought  to  an  earlier 
issue  there  than  elsewhere. 

It  need  not  necessarily  be  a  violent  issue,  as  the 
people  are  fertile  in  social  resources,  ingenious 
and  unwearied  in  making  social  experiments,  Com- 
munistic, Mormonistic,  Co-operative.  Moreover, 
American  economists  and  social  thinkers  have  taken 
up  the  question  betimes,  and  there  is  no  branch  of 
philosophy  in  which  they  have  shown  more  ability 
and  originality  than  in  social  speculation.  They 
are  now  doing  their  part  which  will  be  an  important 
one  in  mediating  between  capital  and  labour,  and  by 
criticizing  both  Socialism  and  Political  Economy 
they  may  produce  light  that  may  enable  their 
country  to  go  on  in  the  path  of  social  progress 
without  social  convulsions. 

III. 
It  remains  to  mention  a  peculiar  kind  of  Socialists, 
if  such  they  can  be  called,  who  are  not  known  at  all 
in  England,  but  who  are  determined  and  formidable 
in  France,  and  who  exist  all  over  the  Continent  as  well 
as  in  America.  These  men  are  revolutionaries,  and 
something  more.  They  will  march  willingly  with 
the  violent  revolutionary  party  to  the  destruction  of 


1 8  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD, 

existing  States  and  existing  Governments ;  but  they 
will  be  no  party  to  the  raising  again  of  any  Govern- 
ment, or  of  anything  in  the  shape  of  the  State,  because 
they  are  convinced  of  the  incurable  viciousness  of  all 
Governments,  existing  or  possible,  and  of  the  State 
in  all  its  forms,  autocratic,  oligarchic,  democratic.  The 
State  and  all  its  institutions  and  laws  are  evils  : 
Better  it  had  never  existed.  It  has  always  been 
worked  in  the  interests  of  the  few  to  the  hurt  of  the 
many.  It  has  always  by  its  laws  repressed  liberty,  by 
its  institutions  handed  over  the  poor  to  be  dominated 
by  the  rich.  The  effect  has  always  been  the  same  for 
the  greater  number,  whatever  the  form  of  the  State. 
Let  them  all  be  destroyed  and  all  go  down  together, 
and  let  them  never  again  be  restored.  There  must 
be  no  Central  Government :  even  no  local  Govern- 
ment, no  public  authority  whatever — not  even  the 
policeman.  Let  all  authority  and  law  be  destroyed  ; 
let  us  return  to  Rousseau's  State  of  Nature  before  civil 
society  and  Governments  existed.  No  aggregation 
of  men  greater  than  the  "  Amorphous  Commune  "  is 
wanted,  and  no  laws  in  it.  Equality  in  the  com- 
mune, full  liberty  and  no  authority,  is  the  ideal.  Work, 
presumably,  is  to  be  done,  and  cheerfully  ;  for  the 
co-operative  society  in  field  and  factory  is  shadowed 
forth  as  the  pleasing  picture  when  all  Governments 
are  subverted.  One  thing  they  deem  certain  :  if  we 
once  get  back  to  the  State  of  Nature,  if  we  could 
begin  again,  human  society  would  never  travel  in 
the  same  fatal  lines  as  it  has  done  ;  it  would  neither 
have  property  nor  the  legal  family,  and  if  all 
authority  were  prevented,  the  State  could  never  again 
come  into  being  to  re-create  them  ;  there  would  then 


THE   FORMS   OF   SOCIALISM.  1 9 

be  no  more  national  wars ;  no  more  exploitation  of 
labour ;  no  more  tyrannies ;  real  liberty,  equality, 
fraternity  would  for  the  first  time,  be  possible,  and 
peace  would  be  over  the  world.  Such  is  the  final 
prospect ;  but  to  get  to  it,  war,  they  allow,  will  be 
necessary,  for  Governments  must  be  first  subverted, 
and  to  effect  this  force  will  be  necessary. 

These  last  are  the  Anarchists,  and,  according  to 
the  definition  before  adopted,  should  not  be  regarded 
as  Socialists,  because,  far  from  desiring  the  aid  of  the 
State  to  bring  in  their  schemes,  their  one  attitude  to 
the  State  is  that  of  ceaseless  hostility,  and  their  one 
hope  is  to  overthrow  it.  Nevertheless,  so  far  as  they 
aim  in  the  end  at  social  equality,  as  they  do,  they  may 
be  regarded  as  a  species  of  Socialists — "  the  extreme 
left  "  of  the  Socialists'  camp.  It  is  a  question  of  ter- 
minology whether  we  are  to  regard  them  as  Socialists 
or  not.  If  State  intervention  is  the  essence  of 
Socialism,  then  Anarchists  are  not  Socialists,  but  if 
the  aim  at  equality  is  the  essential  thing,  then 
Anarchists  are  Socialists,  and  extreme  ones.  Grow- 
ing usage  favours  the  former  sense.  But  it  should 
not  be  forgotten  that  it  is  a  question  of  words,  nor 
that  the  Anarchists'  final  aim  would  be  described  as 
socialistic.  Moreover,  when  the  work  of  destruction 
is  done,  this  final  idea  somewhat  rcseniblcs  that  of 
Fourier,  who  is  usually  classed  amongst  the  Socialists, 
in  fact,  sharing,  with  St.  Simon,  the  honour  of  being 
one  of  the  founders  of  .Socialism.  Fourier  likewise 
proposed  to  dispense  with  the  aid  of  the  Slate  in  trying 
his  experiments.  He  also  regarded  the  commune  as 
the  true  ultimate  political  whole  ;  only  he  differs  from 
the  Anarchist  in  not  believing  the  subversion  of  the 


20  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

State   the   necessary  first   preliminary  to  trying  his 
scheme. 

Such,  then,  are  the  chief  forms  of  modern  SociaHsm. 
But  we  shall  never  understand  Socialism  fully,  nor 
know  either  its  strength  or  weakness,  without  some 
knowledge  of  its  past  history.     Without  knowing  its 
past,  we  shall  notunderstand  its  present  fc.rms  :  nor  the 
absolute  necessity  of  its  presence.  As  Sociologists  like 
Comte  and  Herbert  Spencer,  in  agreement  with  the 
modern  Historical  School,  inform  us,  we  cannot  under- 
stand the  present  irrespective  of  the  past ;  without 
a   knowledge  of  causes  which   lie  in  the  past,  there 
can  be  no  right  interpretation  of  the  existing  effects  ; 
nor,  it  may  be  added,  without  this  knowledge  can  we 
make  any  safe  prediction  as  to  the  future,  whether  of 
Society  or  of  Socialism,  because  such   prediction  can 
only  consist  in  the  calculation  of  the  probable  effect 
of  existing  tendencies  and  forces  as  gathered  from  a 
study  of  the  past  and  present.     Happily,  some  general 
power  of  prediction,  without  foreseeing  the  details, 
we  may  have   irom  the  knowledge   of  the  past  and 
present,  rightly  interpreted.     We  can  gather  the  large 
and  growing  tendencies  and  forces,  industrial,  social, 
moral  and   political,  and   from  these  forces,  together 
with  existing  general    facts    (statical    laws)  we    may 
hazard  some  broad  predictions  that  will  probably  be 
realized   in   future.     Especially  may   we  make  such 
rough  forecast  as  to  what  may  be  in  the  more  specific 
economic  sphere,  in  which  the  tendencies  are  more  pro- 
nounced and  clear,  as  well  as  in  general  more  durable 
and  massive,  and  less  subject  to   modification  from 
human  volitions,  or  the  existence  of  counter  tenden- 
cies, than  those  in  the  spheres  of  morals  or  politics. 


CHAPTER   II. 

SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE   NINETEENTH   CENTURY. 

I. 

Socialism  in  its  essence  is  not  a  new  thing-.  The 
word  is  new  ;  the  Sociahsts' argument  that  all  wealth 
is  due  to  the  labour  of  the  working  classes  is  new  ; 
and  the  principal  forms  which  the  socialistic  spirit 
now  assumes,  owing  to  the  changed  conditions  of 
modern  industry  and  the  production  of  wealth,  are 
new  ;  but  the  general  thing,  the  substantial  thing,  is 
old,  and  its  general  aims  are  old,  and  always  the 
same — a  more  even  distribution  of  wealth,  of  money 
or  money's  worth,  as  the  main  material  means  of 
happiness.  It  is  even  a  necessary  thing,  deducible 
from  the  principles  of  human  nature  although  not  at 
all  times  in  active  operation.  Although  in  a  given 
society  the  spirit  may  be  sluggish  or  slumbering, 
though  it  may  be  cowed  or  conquered  for  a  time,  it 
always  exists  awaiting  favouring  conditions  to  mani- 
fest itself  again.'     Socialism,  in  the  form  of  a  struggle 

•  Roscher  specifies  the  general  conditions  under  which  com- 
munisticand  socialistic  ideas  appearas  follows;  (i)a  well-defined 
confrontation  of  rich   and  poor  without  a   stron;,'   intervening 
middle    class  ;    (2)  a  high    degree  of  the  division  of   labour 
(3)  revolutions  which  perplex  opinion  as  to  right,  and  in  which 


22  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

of  the  lower  classes  to  raise  their  condition,  is  as  old  as 
History,  in  which  it  forms  some  of  the  most  important, 
though  hitherto  neglected,  chapters.  Socialism,  in 
the  sense  of  a  struggle  for  greater  equality,  is  as  old 
as  civil  society,  old  as  the  separation  of  men  into 
classes,  old  as  the  distinction  of  rich  and  poor.  Fur- 
ther, the  spirit  of  Socialism,  in  the  shape  of  a  set  of 
principles  aiming  at  the  establishment  and  perpetua- 
tion of  reasonable  equality,  presided  at  the  founda- 
tion of  more  than  one  famous  historical  state.  Moses 
(or  whoever  wrote  or  compiled  the  books  of  Leviticus 
and  Deuteronomy)  was  so  far  a  Socialist  that  we 
can  clearly  see  his  endeavour,  by  judicious  institu- 
tions, to  prevent  great  inequality  amongst  the  Jews, 
while  Private  Property  and  Inheritance  are  neverthe- 
le=;s  sanctioned.  We  find  in  Leviticus  a  system  of 
land-holding  intended  to  secure  reasonable  equality, 
and  a  very  remarkable  institution,  the  Jubilee,  de- 
signed to  prevent  the  Jewish  people  from  being 
permanently  divorced  from  the  land.  We  have  un- 
usual clemency  shown  to  the  honest  debtor  by  which 
the  purpose  of  a  good  Bankruptcy  Law  was  effected  ; 
and  a  special  provision  for  the  poor,  if  any  such  should 
appear  under  a  general  socialistic  polity  expressly 
designed  to  prevent  extreme  poverty.  The  usurer 
as  an  evil  possibility  is  foreseen  by  Moses,  and  is 
warned  from  exercising  his  function,  or  practising  his 
methods,  at  the  cost  of  his  brethren  in  their  necessi- 

the  multitude  have  learned  their  power;  (4)  a  Democratic  con- 
stitution of  the  State  ;  (5)  a  general  decay  of  religion  and 
morals  and  the  spread  of  an  atheistic  and  materialistic  spirit. 
("  Political  Economy,"  vol.  i.) 


SOCIALISM   BEFORE   THE    19TII   CENTURY.       23 

ties.  We  find  equality  aimed  at,  and  fraternity  every- 
where inculcated  as  the  surest  moral  guarantee  of 
equality.  But  all  this  is  of  the  essence  of  Socialism. 
Moreover,  it  is  State  Socialism,  or  Socialism  embodied 
in  fundamental  institutions,  and  under  the  consecra- 
tion and  guardianship  of  Law  ;  and  it  had  the  further 
consecration  of  Religion,  which  was  in  the  beginning 
inseparably  connected  with  Law.  It  is  Socialism  ; 
only  it  differs  from  modern  Socialism  in  the  important 
particular  that  it  was  Socialism  established,  and  for 
a  long  time  successfully  worked  in  practice,  whereas 
modern  Socialism  exists  as  yet  mainly  in  aim  and 
endeavour.  It  was  Socialism  embodied  in  institu- 
tions, customs,  and  laws,  whereas  ours  is  a  spirit  that 
seeks  incarnation.  It  was  in  a  word  accomplished 
and  successful  Socialism,  whilst  ours  is  still  in  the 
militant  state  ;  and  has  still  to  demonstrate  its  prac- 
ticability and  advantages. 

In  time  the  Jewish  Socialism  failei.  Individualism 
and  gross  inequality  of  condition  came  ;  but  the  Law 
of  Moses  acted  as  a  drag  to  make  the  process  of 
change  to  individualism  slow,  and  the  Jewish  Pro- 
phets appeared  who  denounced  the  mighty  and  the 
despoiler  and  oppressor  of  his  brethren  The  pro- 
phets were  Socialists  :  Isaiah  the  greatest  of  Social- 
ists. Whoever  doubts  the  essential  similarity  of 
social  phenomena  at  different  times  and  in  different 
societies,  provided  they  have  reached  similar  stages 
of  social  evolution,  or  whoever  thinks  that  the  recur- 
rence of  similar  social  effects  from  similar  social 
causes  does  not  take  place,  should  read  Isaiah's  de- 
nunciations of  those  who  "  grind    the  faces  of   the 


24  SOCIALISM    NEW   AND   OLD. 

poor  ;  "  of  those  "  who  join  house  to  house  and  add 
field  to  field,  that  there  be  no  place  left  in  the  land  ; " 
of  those  who,  not  unlike  some  modern  class  legislators, 
"  decree  unrighteous  decrees  to  turn  aside  the  needy 
from  justice,  and   to  take  away  the  right  from  the 
poor  of  my  people  ; "    of  those  who  oppressed   the 
widow  and  the  orphan,  that  worst  of  crimes  in  the 
eyes  of  Jewish  sentiment.    So  similar,  in  fact,  is  the  list 
of  social  and  moral  evils,  so  common  the  causes,  that 
the  words  of  Isaiah  are  still   the  best  description  of 
our  own  evils  and  of  our  social  situation.     What  was 
his  remedy  ?     Remarkable,  and  not  without  signifi- 
cance for  us  :  for  the  present,  it  was  moral  regeneration 
with  the  alternative  of  national  destruction  ;   for  the 
future,  it  was  the  coming  of  a  king  who  should   rule 
in  righteousness  and  execute  judgment  and  justice. 
Always  with  the  Hebrew  prophet,  it  was  the  great 
and   good  King,  the  Messiah,  who  was   at   once   to 
deliver  them  from  their  enemies   abroad,  and  to   re- 
introduce justice  at  home.     He  should  be  mighty  to 
do  the  double  work  ;  to  break   in   pieces  the  enemy, 
and  to  curb  and  check  entrenched  and  coalesced  class 
selfishness  ;  he  should  be  wise, — "  filled  with  the  spirit 
of  understanding  and  knowledge  ;  "  for  want  of  insight 
would  be  fatal  and  would  make  all  things  worse  ;  he 
should  be  filled  with  the  spirit  of  justice.     He  should 
be  the  strong  conqueror,  the  just  legislator,  the  wise 
ruler;  to  combine  the  requisite  conditions,  he  should 
be  almost  supra-mortal ;  and  in  fact  the  Messiah,  the 
great   deliverer  from    the  foreign   enemy,  the  social 
redeemer  and  restorer  of  justice,  while  human,  was 
yet  conceived  by  Isaiah  to  be,  if  not  something  more 


SOCIALISM    BEFORE   THE    I9TH   CENTURY.        2$ 

than  human,  yet  One  expressly  sent  from  heaven  for 
the  work. 

Similar  is  the  burden  in  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel ; 
similar,  but  sterner,  the  denunciation  of  existing 
society  as  things  grew  ever  worse  ;  and  similar  the 
vision  of  the  One  who  was  to  bring  the  promised 
deliverance. 

If  we  come  to  the  New  Testament,  the  Socialism 
in  the  Gospels — sometimes  going  even  to  the  extreme 
of  Communism — is  manifest.  Christ  was  Himself 
the  Messiah  of  Isaiah's  prophecies,  only  that  His 
mission  is  conceived  somewhat  differently  from 
Isaiah's  prophecies,  to  which  frequent  reference  is 
made.  He  did  not  come  as  a  conqueror  or  deliverer 
from  the  Romans.  He  had  come  "  to  preach  the 
Gospel  to  the  poor,"  and  to  "  proclaim  deliverance  to 
the  captives."  The  rich  are  repeatedly  and  terribly 
denounced.  The  poor  are  blessed.  Communism  is 
advocated  and  practised.  The  voluntary  surrender 
of  property  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor  is  recommended 
to  the  rich  young  man.  It  was  the  one  thing  wanting. 
The  precept  is  laid  down  to  his  hearers:  "Give  to 
him  that  asketh,"  "  and  lend,  expecting  nothing  in 
return."  Moreover,  morality  and  true  religion  are 
made  on  the  most  solemn  occasion,  and  in  the  most 
serious  utterances  in  all  the  Gospels,  to  turn  not 
on  speculative  beliefs,  but  on  whether  we  have  fed 
the  hungry,  clothed  the  naked,  visited  the  prisoners  ; 
in  general,  on  whether  we  have  aided  and  succoured 
the  poor  and  the  suffering  portions  of  humanity,  in 
suffering  chiefly  because  they  arc  poor.  In  short, 
there  can  be  no  mistake  about  it— in  spite  of  certain 


26  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND  OLD. 

passages  pointing  in  a  different  direction — the  Gospels 
are  pervaded  with  the  spirit  of  SociaHsm  and  Com- 
munism (which  is  merely  the  extreme  of  SociaHsm), 
as  the  predominant  spirit ;  and  the  "  Kingdom  of 
Heaven,"  in  one  of  its  meanings,  was  a  Society  on 
this  Earth  in  which  there  were  to  be  altered  social  as 
well  as  moral  conditions,  and  in  which  the  poor  were 
to  be  exalted  and  the  rich  brought  down.  The  ideal  of 
the  Christian  Society  was  equality  of  social  conditions, 
or,  if  any  inequality,  it  was  to  be  an  inversion  of  the 
existing  one,  requiring  from  the  greatest  the  greatest 
sum  of  services  and  sacrifices  :  no  private  property  ; 
no  competition  save  to  do  the  greatest  good,  with 
mutual  love  making  all  possible  and  warming  and 
vitalizing  the  whole  community.  We  have  not  the 
modern  formula  of  distribution — "To  each  according 
to  his  services,"  but  a  far  higher  rule.  The  greatest 
is  to  render  the  greatest  service  to  others,  expecting 
nothing  special  in  return,  and  yet  therein  is  to  find 
his  happiness  according  to  the  seeming  paradox  that 
whoso  foregoes  material  things  shall  gain  a  hundred- 
fold here  and  yet  more  hereafter. 

The  ideal  has  hitherto  been  found  impossible  ;  but 
let  not  any  say  that  it  does  not  exist  in  the  Gospels  ; 
that  Christ  did  not  contemplate  an  earthly  society ; 
and  that,  therefore,  the  words  which  seem  to  have  a 
socialistic  significance  do  not  concern  Christians  of 
to-day.  The  words  pointing  one  way  are  too  nume- 
rous to  be  thus  explained  away  ;  they  did  refer  to  a 
Society  conceived  as  possible  on  our  earth  ;  to  a 
Society  believed  to  be  ideally  the  best,  and  conformed 
to  the  necessary  conditions  of  a  happy  society;  to  a 


SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE    IQTH   CENTURY.       2/ 

society,  moreover,  capable  of  being  realized.  Un- 
doubtedly, then,  there  is  Socialism  in  the  Gospels, 
only  it  is  not  quite  State  Socialism,  because  the  better 
Society  was  to  be  brought  about  by  the  voluntary 
union  of  believers. 


II. 

The  Communistic  idea  was  long  kept  alive  by  the 
Church,  being  inculcated  on  the  rich  in  the  form  of 
almsgiving,  and  fully  embodied  in  one  of  her  most 
remarkable  institutions — the  Religious  Houses  with 
life  and  goods  in  common,  and  the  surplus  goods  to  the 
poor.  We  find,  too,  the  early  Fathers  of  the  Church, 
St.  Jerome,  St.  Basil,  and  othei^,  denouncing  riches 
as  robbery  as  fervently  as  Proudhon,  and  almost  in 
the  same  words.  Merely  substituting  ''riches"  for 
"property,"  they  say  "riches  is  robbery,"  And  all 
througiiout  the  ages  of  the  Church's  grandeur  and 
power  wc  find  her  saints  speaking  Communism,  the 
Church  not  condemning  ;  although  she  herself,  in  her 
collective  capacity,  partly  from  respect  for  the  esta- 
blished order  of  things,  partly  because  she  profited 
by  the  institution  of  property,  leaned  to  the  side  of 
the  rich  and  the  powerful  in  the  great  social  quarrel 
which  went  on  intermittently.  In  truly  Catholic 
and  comprehensive  spirit  she  combined  Communism 
with  private  property  in  herself;  in  equally  Catholic 
spirit,  though  not  quite  in  the  spirit  of  the  Founder 
of  the  Church,  she  f;ave  her  benediction  to  the  rich 
as  well  as  the  poor  ;  taking  care,  however,  to  make 
the  former  pay,  in  return  for  the  ease  and  grace  done 


28  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

to  their  souls,  some  equivalent,  a  part  of  which  she 
held  for  the  poor. 

In  the  dark  ages,  in  the  long  struggle  of  the 
strong  amongst  races  and  individuals,  the  Christian 
ideal  was  wholly  inapplicable  outside  the  monas- 
tery, but  as  part  compensation  the  poor  and  the 
helpless  were  cared  for  by  the  Church,  that  is  those  of 
them  (comparatively  few)  who  were  neither  serfs  to 
any  lord,  nor  had  any  means  of  livelihood.  When 
Feudalism  was  fully  established,  society  assumed  a 
hierarchical  gradation  of  classes,  the  strong  man  at 
the  top  as  lord,  the  weak  and  conquered  beneath  as 
serfs.  The  serf  laboured  so  many  days  for  the  lord,  so 
many  for  himself.  The  mendicant  or  pauper  class, 
the  lacklands  and  lackalls,  were  not  comparatively 
numerous.  In  the  towns  the  craftsmen  were  asso- 
ciated in  guilds  which  protected  the  interests  of  their 
members.  Society  was  stable  ;  men  were  in  fixed 
relations  to  other  men,  and  though  there  was  higher 
and  lower,  strong  and  weak,  there  was  little  dissatis- 
faction ;  the  morrow  was  sure  to  all,  even  to  the 
destitute  few. 

During  the  decline  of  Feudalism  and  after  it,  we  find 
a  different  state  of  things.  Society  again  became 
fluid  and  disorganized.  We  find  risings  of  the  people 
in  England,  France,  and  Germany,  the  three  leading 
nations  ;  risings  of  the  "Commonalty"  in  England, 
Peasant  Wars  in  Germany,  Jacquerie  in  France,  from 
the  same  common  cause  in  each  case.  And  we  find 
the  Communistic  phrases  in  the  mouths  of  the  leaders. 
For  two  hundred  years  in  England,  from  the  rising  of 
Wat  Tyler  in  1381  to  Ket's  rebellion  in  the  Eastern 


SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE    I9TH   CENTURY.        29 

Counties,  society  was  unstable  and  liable  to  these  social 
commotions  ;  in  England  all  throughout  the  century 
of  the  Tudor  Sovereigns,  when  the  monarchs  were 
strong  and  the  people  sturdy  and  warlike,  we  find 
repeated  insurrections  of  the  people  to  maintain  their 
rights  to  the  land  ;  risings  against  the  clearances  and 
the  practice  of  enclosures  by  the  great  landowners, 
who  thought  they  should  be  able  to  do  as  they  chose 
with  their  own  in  the  former  case,  and  who,  in  the 
latter,  were  not  over-scrupulous  as  to  what  was  their 
own.  The  rising  against  the  practice  of  clearances, 
of  turning  arable  into  pasture  land,  and  driving 
away  the  cultivators  has  been  described  as  an  insur- 
rection against  economic  causes  and  laws.  In  reality 
it  was  a  rising  against  an  attempt  to  deprive  the 
tillers  of  the  soil  of  the  means  of  life,  and  against  the 
attempt  of  the  landlords  to  exercise  absolute  rights  of 
property  in  the  land  which  they  never  really  possessed, 
and  could  not  be  permitted  to  exercise  at  the  cost  of  the 
existence  of  the  people.  The  strong  Tudor  sovereigns, 
Henry  VII.  and  Henry  VIII.,  saw  this  clearly,  and 
attempted  by  statutes  to  check  the  practice,  though 
with  only  partial  success.  One  permanent  social 
result  followed  from  these  practices  together  with  the 
confiscation  of  the  property  of  the  religious  commu- 
nities, namely,  a  great  increase  in  the  destitute  poor, 
so  great  that  at  last  a  permanent  provision  had  to  be 
made  for  them ;  and  a  new  Communistic  institu- 
tion in  the  shape  of  Poor  Laws  was  devised  in  place 
of  the  old  Communistic  institutions  dissolved. 

The  great  increase  of  the  poor  and  their  hardships 
roused  the  pity  and  sympathy  of  Sir  Thomas  More, 


30  SOCIALISM  NEW  AND  OLD. 

who  in  his  "  Utopia  "  goes  back  to  the  Communism  of 
the  Gospels  and  in  some  respects  of  Plato's  Republic 
as  the  only  radical  cure.  No  punishment,  however 
severe,  he  contends,  is  able  to  restrain  those  from 
robbing"  who  can  find  no  other  means  of  livelihood, 
which  must  be  the  plight  of  many  under  an  economic 
system  which  drives  men  from  the  land,  and  does  not 
provide  employment  for  them.  Apparently  Sir 
Thomas  had  not  come  to  the  Elizabethan  alternative 
of  levying  a  portion  for  the  unemployed  poor  from  the 
resources  of  the  rest  of  the  community.  In  a  remark- 
able passage  near  the  close  of  his  book  we  find  the 
eternal  argument  of  the  Communists  given  in  the 
clearest  and  most  striking  words,  and  the  argument 
of  the  modern  Socialists  anticipated.  Excepting 
only  with  the  Utopians,  he  says,  "  May  I  perish  if  I  see 
anything  that  looks  either  like  justice  or  equity,  for 
what  justice  is  there  in  this,  that  a  nobleman,  a 
goldsmith,  a  banker,  or  any  other  man  that 
either  does  nothing  at  all,  or  at  least  is  em- 
ployed at  things  that  are  of  no  use  to  the 
public,  should  live  in  great  luxury  and  splendour 
upon  what  is  so  ill  acquired  ;  and  a  mean  man, 
a  carter,  a  smith,  or  a  ploughman,  that  works  harder 
even  than  the  beasts  themselves,  and  is  employed  in 
labours  so  necessary  that  no  commonwealth  could 
hold  out  a  year  without  them,  can  only  earn  so  poor 
a  livelihoo-^,  and  must  lead  so  miserable  a  life,  that 
the  condition  of  the  beasts  is  much  better  than  theirs. 
For  as  the  beasts  do  not  work  so  constantly,  so  they 
feed  almost  as  well,  and  with  more  pleasure  ;  and 
have  no  anxiety  about  what  is  to  come,  whilst  these 


SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE    I9TH   CENTURY.       3 1 

men  are  depressed  by  a  barren  and  fruitless  employ- 
ment, and  tormented  with  the  apprehension  of  want 
in  their  old  age.  The  Government  does  ill  to  be  so 
prodigal  of  its  favours  to  the  high-placed  and  idle, 
and  those  who  minister  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  rich, 
and  on  the  other  hand  to  take  no  care  of  the  meaner 
sort,  such  as  ploughmen,  colliers,  smiths,  without 
whom  it  could  not  subsist."  And  when  the  public 
has  used  up  their  bodies  and  their  services  it  leaves 
them  "to  die  in  great  misery."  Not  only  so  :  "The 
richer  sort  are  often  endeavouring  to  bring  the  hire  of 
the  labourers  lower,  not  only  by  fraudulent  practices, 
but  by  the  laws  which  they  procure  to  be  made  to 
that  effect  ;  so  that,  though  it  is  a  thing  most  unjust 
in  itself  to  give  such  small  rewards  to  those  who  de- 
serve so  well  of  the  public,  yet  they  have  given  these 
hardships  the  name  and  colour  of  justice,  by  procuring 
laws  to  be  made  for  regulating  them." 

Here  is  the  argument  of  the  Socialists  anticipated 
three  hundred  years  ago  ;  the  following  breathes  the 
vcryspirit  of  Rousseau  and  the  modern  Revolutionists: 
"  Therefore,  I  must  say  that,  as  I  hope  for  mercy,  I 
can  have  no  notion  of  all  the  other  governments  that  I 
see  or  know  than  that  they  are  a  conspiracy  of  the  rich, 
who,  on  pretence  of  managing  the  public,  only  pursue 
their  private  ends,  and  devise  all  the  ways  and  arts 
they  can  find  out  ;  first  that  they  may,  without  danger, 
preserve  all  that  they  have  so  ill  acquired,  and  then 
that  they  may  engage  the  poor  to  toil  and  labour  for 
them  at  as  low  rates  as  possible,  and  oppress  thcni  as 
much  as  they  please.  And  if  they  can  but  prevail  to 
get   these  contrivances  established  by  the  show   of 


32  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

public  authority,  which  is  considered  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  whole  people,  then  they  are  accounted 
laws." 

The  book  made  no  impression  at  the  time,  because 
first  it  was  written  in  Latin  for  the  learned.  Again, 
when  it  was  rendered  into  vigorous  English,  near  the 
end  of  the  sixteenth  century,  it  was  still  confined  to  the 
few,  and  by  them  regarded  as  an  ingenious  exercise 
of  the  fancy,  not  seriously  to  be  taken,  and  impossible 
of  realization  out  of  Utopia  or  the  land  of  Nowhere 
whose  customs  it  describes. 

The  work  nevertheless  presents  a  remarkable 
example  of  suspended  vitality  which,  three  centuries 
after  its  first  conception,  has  produced  effects  ;  for 
the  book  is  now  read,  and  existing  Socialists  draw 
both  arguments  and  practical  hints  from  it.  It  is,  in 
fact,  the  first  true  work  on  Social  Philosophy  in  the 
English  language,  with  the  true  marks  of  genius  upon 
it,  originality  and  the  perception  of  permanent  truth, 
moral  and  social,  and  all  the  more  remarkable  as 
coming  from  an  English  Lord  Chancellor. 

Other  philosophers  besides  More  exercised  their 
minds  in  devising  Ideal  Commonwealths,  or  in  body- 
ing forth  "  Visions  of  the  Perfect  State  ;"  in  fact,  for  a 
century  and  more,  the  construction  of  political 
Utopias  was  a  favourite  species  of  literary  effort,  and 
the  first  form  of  political  speculation,  cast  in  the 
fanciful  form  probably  in  part  out  of  deference  to  the 
established  order  of  things,  and  for  fear  of  giving 
offence  to  the  powers  that  be,  partly  because  the 
materials  for  scientific  treatment  were  not  accessible, 
nor  the  philosophic  habit  and  faculty  of  generalizing 


SOCIALISM    BEFORE   THE    19TH   CENTURY.        33 

common  until  later.  Campanella,  Fenelon,  Harring- 
ton, Bacon,  and  others  produced  works  of  this  species  ; 
and  in  most  of  them  private  property  is  found  the  social 
stumbling-block  and  the  cause  of  social  ills,  and 
communism  of  some  sort  the  only  cure. 


III. 

It  was  not  difficult  to  devise  Ideal  Commonwealths, 
the  example  once  set ;  but  as  it  was  found  in  time  to  be 
profitless,  the  practice  became  discredited,  the  writer 
was  called  a  political  projector,  and  Utopias  ceased 
to  be  produced.  It  was  more  to  the  purpose  to  dis- 
cover, if  possible,  how  actual  commonwealths  and 
societies  came  into  being,  and  their  continued  raiso?i 
d'etre,  and  this  was  the  problem  to  which  philo- 
sophers next  addressed  themselves,  a  really  philo- 
sophical and  most  important  problem,  but,  for  the 
solution  of  which  unfortunately,  as  Sir  Henry  Maine 
remarks,  the  historical  knowledge  of  the  seventeenth 
and  eighteenth  century  was  quite  insufficient,  so 
that  the  philosophers  were  obliged  to  supplement 
their  imperfect  knowledge  by  ingenious  guesses  and 
to  substitute  hypothesis  for  history,  drawing  there- 
from the  most  plausible  deductions  they  could. 

For  a  century  and  a  half  the  human  mind  sat  down 
obstinately  in  front  of  the  problem  of  the  origin  of 
Civil  Society  and  Government,  Hobbes,  Locke, 
Filmer,  Rousseau,  all  inquire  into  it,  and  the  first 
two,  as  well  as  Rousseau,  base  the  origin  upon  an 
original  covenant  or  social  contract.  All  three 
discuss  likewise  the  best  form  of  political  Constitution, 


34  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

which  Hobbes  finds  to  be  an  Absolute  Monarchy, 
Locke  a  Constitutional  Monarchy,  and  Rousseau  a 
Democracy. 

The  first  of  these  writers,  Hobbes,  very  far  from 
being  what  he  has  been  called,  "  one  of  England's 
false  prophets,"  was  one  of  the  most  clear-seeing, 
original,  and  independent  thinkers  on  morals  and 
politics  that  ever  lived.  His  great  work,  "  Leviathan," 
was  epoch-making  in  both.  Though  weak  in  history, 
like  all  in  his  age,  he  was  the  first  to  perceive  that  the 
conduct  of  associated  men  must  be  governed  by  the 
nature — the  appetites,  desires,  and  affections — of  in- 
dividual men  ;  that  a  sound  psychology,  therefore,  is 
the  one  base  of  morals  and  politics  ;  and  accordingly 
he  begins  his  famous  book  with  an  account  of  indi- 
vidual human  nature,  its  passions,  desires,  and  senti- 
ments, in  general  with  the  principles  that  move  man 
to  action.  He  is  in  error,  indeed,  in  supposing  that 
man  at  all  times  is  the  same  ;  that  rude  primitive 
men  had  as  many  or  the  same  principles  of  action  as 
civilized  men.  He  did  not  allow  for  the  fact  of 
evolution  ;  that  the  soul  of  the  civilized  man  is  as 
much  expanded  beyond  that  of  the  primitive  man  as 
that  of  the  grown  man  is  beyond  that  of  the  child  ; 
consequently  his  account  of  the  motives  that  first 
urged  men  into  society,  and  regulated  their  early 
intercourse,  requires  qualification  even  on  the  score  of 
psychology  were  there  no  historical  objections  to 
it.  Nevertheless  there  remains  a  certain  truth  in 
his  theory  and  his  reasonings. 

What  led  men  at  all  into  civil  society,  according  to 
Hobbes,    was   their   terror  of  anarchy   and    its   ex- 


SOCIALISM   BEFORE   THE    19TH   CENTURY,        35 

perienced  evils  in  the  State  of  Nature,  their  original 
state  ; — in  which  state,  while  there  is  ceaseless  strife, 
there  are  no  arts,  no  learning,  no  inventions,  no  com- 
merce, and  the  life  of  man  is  "  solitary,  poor,  nasty, 
brutish,  and  short."  Men  weary  of  this  state  of  misery 
are  urged  to  get  out  of  it  by  their  fears,  and,  being 
rational,  "  reason  suggesteth  convenient  articles  of 
peace,"  which  in  brief  were,  that  they  should  all 
forego  mutual  aggressions,  and  hand  over  their 
powers  to  a  single  person,  "  one  man  or  one  body," 
who  should  maintain  peace  and  justice,  and  defend 
them  against  outside  enemies.  This  one  is  Sovereign : 
his  voice  is  Law — "  the  speech  of  him  that  of  right 
commands."  Property  is  the  creature  of  la\v  ;  there 
is  no  other  origin  for  it.  But  the  sovereign  one 
should  be  guided  by  the  law  or  laws  of  nature  in 
issuing  his  laws.  In  the  State  of  Nature  every  one 
had  a  right  to  everything  that  he  had  the  power  to  get, 
but  only  so  long  as  he  was  able  to  hold  it.  Hobbes 
believes  that  an  absolute  monarchy,  the  monarch 
governing  according  to  the  law  of  nature  or  natural 
morality,  is  the  best  form  of  government  for  the  whole 
people,  and  especially  for  the  masses.  If  the  monarch 
is  wise  and  good,  so  much  the  better  ;  if  not,  still  he 
should  be  obeyed,  because  the  remedy,  revolution, 
involving  civil  war  and  anarchy,  would  be  worse  than 
the  evil.  Better  to  bear  the  ills  we  have  than  fly 
to  worse -to  anarchy  and  its  horrors,  to  get  out  of 
which  was  the  original  cause  of  the  social  contract 
and  the  transfer  of  power  to  the  sovereign  one. 

Locke  likewise  bases  Civil  Society  on  a  social  con- 
tract.    But  with  Locke  there   is  a  contract  on  both 


36  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

sides,   on  the   governed   that   they  will   obey    pro- 
vided the  sovereign  will  govern  according  to  certain 
fundamental  principles.     The  obedience  is  not  to  be 
unlimited  or  passive  ;  in  other  words,  the  sovereign's 
power  should  not   be    absolute.     Locke  founds    the 
rights   of  property    on   labour,  not   on    law.      That 
thing  is  "  mine  "  if,  having  got  the  raw  material  of  it 
from  the  bounty  of  nature,  I  have  "  mixed  my  labour 
with  it,"  and  this,  whether  the  original  material   be 
land  in  the  primitive  state  of  uncultivation,  or  any  of 
its  spontaneous  products.     If  there  is  plent)''  of  other 
land,  I  do  no  one  harm  by  appropriating  a  part ;  but 
I  must  not  take  more  than  I   can   make  use  of,  and 
my  title  to  any  part  is  only  fully  confirmed  by  its 
reclamation  and  cultivation.     It  is  labour  which  gives 
the  natural  title  to  property  :  moreover,  Locke  adds, 
it    is    labour    which    is    the    cause  of  nearly  all  the 
values  of  things,   whether  value  in  use  or  value  in 
exchange,    an    important   conclusion,    in    which    he 
anticipates   in   great  measure  Ricardo's  theory,  that 
exchange  value  depends   on   the  quantity   of  labour 
necessary  to  produce  commodities  and  place  them  in 
the  market  ;  a  conclusion,  too,  that  Karl  Marx  and 
the  modern  Socialists  have  seized  upon  and  made  the 
foundation  of  their  argument  and  indictment  against 
modern  society. 

One  common  conclusion  of  the  two  English 
philosophers  was  important  from  the  consequences 
afterwards  drawn  from  it  by  Rousseau.  According 
to  both,  men  in  a  State  of  Nature  were  "  free  and 
equal,"  a  proposition  that  Locke  limits  and  carefully 
qualifies  ;  but  which  Hobbes  holds  in  extreme  form. 


SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE    I9TH   CENTURY.        37 

He  maintains  that  not  only  were  men  originally 
equal,  but  that  they  are  so  still  in  the  main  :  "  for  when 
all  is  reckoned  together,  the  difiference  between  man 
and  man  is  not  so  considerable  as  that  one  man 
should  therefore  claim  to  himselfany  benefit  to  which 
another  may  not  pretend  as  well  as  he.  As  to 
strength  of  body,  the  weakest  has  strength  enough  to 
kill  the  strongest  by  secret  machination  or  confederacy 
with  others  "  ;  and  "  as  to  the  faculties  of  the  mind," 
he  adds,  "  I  find  yet  a  greater  equality  amongst  men 
than  that  of  strength.  Leaving  out  of  count  the 
arts  founded  upon  words,  and  especially  that  skill 
of  proceeding  upon  general  rules,  because  these  are 
not  native  faculties,"  men  are  on  a  tolerable  equality. 
That  they  do  not  generally  think  so  is  due  to  a  vain 
conceit  of  their  own  wisdom  ;  others  they  readily 
allow  may  be  more  witty,  eloquent,  or  learned,  but 
not  more  wise  ;  "  for  they  see  their  own  wit  at  hand, 
others  at  a  distance."  But  the  best  practical  proof  of 
equality  is  tliat  each  one  is  satisfied  with  himself,  and 
would  not  exchange  with  another;  "as  there  is  not 
ordinarily  a  greater  sign  of  the  equal  distribution  of 
anything  than  that  every  man  is  contented  with  his 
own  share." 

The  writings  of  both  philosophers  had  much 
influence  on  the  course  of  ICnglish  politics,  the 
friends  of  absolutism  drawing  their  arguments  from 
Hobbes,  the  Whigs  from  Locke  :  though  neither  had 
much  effect  on  the  material  fortunes  of  the  English 
people.  The  cause  of  absolute  monarchy  was  fou;^ht 
and  lost  in  England  in  the  seventeenth  century  :  the 
theory  of  Locke  and   limited   sovereignty    won.      It 


;ia4(i5 


38  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

can  scarcely  be  said  that  the  EngHsh  people  gained 
by  the  final  result ;  for  when  the  prolonged  struggle 
■which  filled  the  whole  century  of  the  Stuart  sovereigns 
was  finished,  the  power  that  really  gained  was  the 
English  landowners,  who  ruled  the  country,  whether 
under  the  name  of  Whig  or  Tory,  until  the  middle 
class  paved  their  way  to  power  by  the  Reform  Bill 
in  1832,  The  limitation  of  the  kingly  power  had  for 
inevitable  effect  the  transfer  of  sovereignty  to  the 
next  most  powerful  interest,  which,  at  the  time, 
before  the  rise  of  the  rich  middle  class,  was  that  of 
the  nobility  and  the  country  gentry.  It  is  true  that 
at  first  only  the  Whig  section  or  faction  of  them 
had  place  and  power,  and  afterwards  the  Tories, 
but  the  class  legislation  of  either  so  far  favoured 
both  and  strengthened  their  social  position.  The 
power  of  the  people  declined.  The  yeomen  dis- 
appeared by  degrees.  They  fought  against  Charles  I., 
in  many  cases  because  the  neighbouring  great  lord 
had  taken  the  king's  side.  They  favoured  the  Revo- 
lution ;  they  gained  nothing  either  by  the  defeat 
of  Charles  or  by  the  Revolution.  Perhaps  they 
took  the  wrong  side  for  their  own  interest.  Perhaps 
a  strong  and  just  monarch  could  have  checked  the 
operation  of  certain  adverse  causes,  lumped  under  the 
general  head  of  economic  causes,  but  which  were 
then,  as  the  like  are  now,  really  due  quite  as  much  to 
the  unchecked  selfishness  of  the  powerful  and  the 
greedy  as  to  the  alleged  economic  causes — that  the 
yeomen  were  thriftless,  employed  bad  methods  of 
culture,  or  had  not  sufficient  capital,  and  were  forced 
at  last,  in  their  necessity,  to  sell  to  the  agent  of  the 


SOCIALISM    BEFORE   THE    I9TH   CENTURY.       39 

great  lord  and  migrate  to  the  towns.  As  a  fact 
their  numbers  steadily  and  rapidly  declined  from  the 
Revolution  all  through  the  eighteenth  century.  The 
new  farming  class,  with  considerable  capital,  took 
their  place  in  the  rural  social  economy,  and  for  a 
long  time  prospered  ;  while  the  class  of  agricultural 
labourers  for  scanty  but  customary  wages,  who  had 
no  land— unless  perhaps  their  share  in  the  steadily 
decreasing  village  common — was  constantly  increas- 
ing in  relative  numbers  throughout  the  century. 


IV. 

A  NEW  stage  in  the  history  of  Communism  and 
Socialism  and  a  new  era  in  the  history  of  human 
society  begins  with  the  works  of  Rousseau,  the  first 
of  which  was  published  in  1750,  a  hundred  years  after 
Hobbes'  "  Leviathan,"  and  some  sixty  after  Locke's 
treatise  on  "  Civil  Government." 

Rousseau  belongs  to  the  same  general  class  of 
political  thinkers  as  Hobbcs  and  Locke.  Like  them, 
he  believes  that  men  lived  in  a  State  of  Nature  before 
they  entered  into  Civil  Society  ;  that  they  emerged 
from  this  state  by  a  social  compact  ;  that  in  this  pre- 
social  state  they  were  free  and  equal  ;  that  though 
there  was  physical  or  natural  inequality,  there  was  no 
political  inequality,  or  inequality  of  condition  coming 
merely  from  convention.  He  differs  from  Mobbcs  in 
believing  that  men  were  peaceful  and  happy  in  the 
State  of  Nature,  and  he  differs  from  both  Ilobbca 
and  Locke  in  the  conclusions  he  reaches,  in  particular 
as  to  the  best  and  the   right   form  of  government  or 


40  SOCIALISM    NEW   AND   OLD. 

political  constitution,  which  with  him  is  a  democracy, 
and  not,  as  with  Hobbes,  an  absolute  monarchy,  or  as 
with  Locke,  a  limited  one.  The  rightful  sovereign  is 
the  people,  the  collective  body  of  citizens  ;  and  the 
people,  though  everywhere  dethroned,  despoiled,  and 
cast  into  slavery,  has  an  inalienable  right  to  retake 
when  it  may  its  rightful  inheritance,  of  which  it 
had  been  stripped  by  the  strong  and  crafty,  who 
now  plead  law  and  prescription  in  favour  of  their 
usurpations. 

In  his  "  Discourssur  rOriginedel'Inegalite  "  (1754) 
we  have  the  story  of  the  fall  of  man  socially ;  in  his 
other  works,  the  "  Contrat  Social  "  in  particular,  the 
way  by  which  the  former  happy  state  may  be  best 
regained. 

According  to  Rousseau,  man  lived  for  uncounted 
ages  in  the  State  of  Nature  before  he  attained  to 
Civil  Society.  He  distinguishes  several  stages,  each 
of  which  was  prolonged.  At  first  he  lived  solitary, 
like  the  lower  animals,  and  not  much  superior  to 
them  save  in  possessing  two  arms,  superfluous  for 
locomotion,  but  useful  in  many  ways,  while  the 
brutes  had  to  go  on  all  fours.  He  lived  on  the  fruits 
and  other  spontaneous  products  of  nature ;  slept 
under  a  tree  or  in  a  cavern  ;  was  without  clothing, 
without  a  house,  without  language  or  ideas, 
without  a  companion  ;  but  strong,  robust,  and 
healthy;  and,  as  far  as  so  Iowa  being  had  faculties 
of  enjoyment,  was  happy  and  contented.  After  a 
time  difficulties  roused  his  dormant  genius.  With 
sharp  stones  and  with  the  branches  of  trees  he  com- 
bated  the   ferocious   animals   or   his    fellows,  or  he 


SOCIALISM   BEFORE   THE    I9TH    CENTURY.       4I 

secured  fruit  before  inaccessible.  As  numbers  increased 
he  had  to  acquire  new  arts.  He  invented  a  hook  and 
Hne,  ensnared  fish,  and  became  ichthyophagous.  He 
invented  rude  bows  and  arrows,  and  became  a  hunter. 
He  discovered  fire,  and  hved  more  easily  through  the 
rigours  of  winter.  In  cold  regions  he  clothed  himself 
with  skins  of  beasts  he  had  slain. 

As  yet  man  lived  solitary  ;  by  degrees  he  learned 
the  advantage  of  a  certain  association  with  others  of 
his  kind,  which,  however,  only  endured  "  so  long  as 
the  passing  need  which  had  occasioned  it."  Here  he 
acquired  the  first  rude  idea  of  a  mutual  engagement, 
of  an  inchoate  contract  in  fact,  and  the  advantages  to 
all  of  fulfilling  his  part.  Here,  too,  he  acquired  the 
art  or  developed  the  dormant  faculty  of  speech, 
which  at  first  consisted  only  of  inarticulate  or  imitative 
cries  and  gestures.  With  the  hardest  and  sharpest 
stones  fashioned  into  axes,  he  cut  wood,  hollowed 
the  ground,  and,  with  the  help  of  clay  and  mud,  made 
the  branches  of  trees  into  rude  huts  -  an  important 
epoch,  because  the  first  rude  huts,  according  to 
Rousseau,  were  the  first  rude  form  of  private  property, 
and  first  permitted  a  true  family  life.  In  fact,  private 
property  and  the  family,  now  threatened  by  advanced 
Communists,  are  natural,  are  older  than  Civil  Society, 
and  not  mere  creatures  of  Law  and  the  State.  Hus- 
band and  w  ife,  father  and  infant,  are  united  in  one 
natural  society,  in  one  home,  from  which  follow  the 
two  "  sweetest  sentiments  known  to  men,  conjugal  and 
paternal  love."  And  now  the  functions  of  the  sexes 
begin  to  differentiate ;  the  woman  becomes  more 
sedentary,  and  remains  to  look  after  the  home  and  the 


42  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

infants,  while  the  man  goes  abroad  to  search  for  the 
common  subsistence. 

In  such  a  simple  and  solitary  life,  with  iew  wants 
and  improved  instruments  for  their  supply,  the  men 
would  enjoy  much  leisure,  which  they  employed 
partly  in  procuring  commodities  better  dispensed  with 
because  such,  at  first  unnecessary,  in  time  gave  rise  to 
real  wants,  the  supply  of  which  was  a  less  gratification 
than  the  privation  was  a  pain. 

Such  is  the  fancy  picture  of  man  in  the  first  two 
stages  of  his  career.  It  is  objected  that  the  picture 
is  too  idyllic,  and  does  not  agree  with  what  we  know  of 
savages  in  the  state  most  nearly  corresponding  to  that 
described.  Further,  it  is  not  confirmed  by  historical 
research  into  the  earliest  times,  which  has  never  dis- 
covered the  solitary  individual  man,  but  only  groups, 
generally  groups  of  kindred.  Nor  has  Darwinism  or 
pre-historic  research  given  confirmation  of  the  view, 
except  in  so  far  as  the  remains  of  the  cave-man, 
with  the  stone  hatchets  found  near  him,  may  be  so 
regarded.  What  follows  is  less  disputable,  though  not 
all  confirmed.  There  is,  in  fact,  a  mixtuie  of  doubtful 
hypothesis,  ingenious  reasoning,  and  general  truth. 

By  degrees,  he  tells  us,  men,  hitherto  nomad, 
settled  down  in  fixed  places,  united  themselves  into 
groups  (he  does  not  say  groups  of  kindred,  which  was 
the  true  state  of  the  case)  ;  finally,  in  each  country 
they  formed  an  individual  nation,  whose  units  were 
like  in  manners  and  character,  not  by  rules  or 
laws,  but  by  similarity  of  life  and  food  and  the 
common  influence  of  climate.  They  lived  in  aggrega- 
tions of  cabins,  and  in  village  societies  ;  and  here  new 


SOCIALISM    BEFORE   THE    I9TH   CENTURY.       43 

qualities  of  soul  and  spirit  were  born,  new  sentiments 
were  evoked.  First  was  born  love  between  the  sexes, 
as  distinct  from  what  he  before  called  conjugal  affec- 
tion. With  love  came  into  the  world  the  dark  twin- 
born  passion  of  jealousy.  All  the  troop  of  virtues 
and  vices  that  have  reference  to  society,  all,  save  only 
those  relating  to  property,  came  into  being.  Inequality 
of  conditions  now  first  appears,  because  natural  dif- 
ferences first  manifest  themselves — differences  in 
beauty,  eloquence,  skill,  strength,  courage,  and  whoso 
has  most  of  these  gains  most  regard,  secures  in  virtue 
of  the  superior  excellence  a  larger  share,  not  of  material 
things,  but  of  what  is  more  valued — praise,  esteem, 
and  consideration,  so  early  and  necessarily  does  ine- 
quality of  natural  gift  bring  its  natural  complement 
of  unequal  reward. 

These  unequal  natural  gifts  and  unequal  benefits  as 
the  result  of  them,  gave  birth  to  bad  qualities,  vanity 
and  contempt  on  the  one  side,  and  on  the  other  envy 
and  shame,  as  they  were  likewise  the  sources  of  pains, 
heart-burnings,  and  humiliations,  to  be  set  over 
against  the  pleasures  of  praise  and  esteem. 

But  on  the  whole  this  was  the  stage  at  which  our 
species  should  have  arrested  itself.  It  was  the  hap- 
piest state,  just  as  there  is  a  happiest  period  in  the  life 
of  the  individual,  at  which  he  would,  if  he  C)uld,  remain 
always,  and  arrest  the  flight  of  time.  This  is  the  state 
at  which  the  savages  have  stopped.  It  was  the 
least  subject  to  revolutions  ;  the  best  for  the  indi- 
vidual man,  who  in  it  was  independent,  free,  equal,  or 
nearly  so,  to  his  fellows,  ready  for  any  fortune,  with  no 
care  for  the  morrow,  such  as  troubles  so  many  of  us. 


44  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

and  who,  in  the  constant  exercise  of  all  his  faculties 
in  many  directions,  derived  a  pleasure  as  well  as  a 
sense  of  dignity  and  self-sufficingness  unknown  to  the 
wearied  drudges  of  monotonous  labour  under  modern 
civilization. 

So  long  as  men  were  contented  to  remain  in  this 
state  ..."  whilst  they  attempted  no  work  that  one 
alone  could  not  execute,  nor  tried  arts  requiring  the 
co-operation  of  many  hands  (division  of  labour), 
they  lived  free,  healthy,  good,  and  happy  lives,  as 
far  as  their  nature  allowed  them  to  do  so,  and  they 
continued  to  enjoy  amongst  each  other  all  the  sweet- 
ness of  independent  social  intercourse  ;  but  as  soon  as 
it  was  perceived  that  it  was  profitable  for  one  to  have 
provisions  for  two,  equality  disappeared,  property 
crept  in,  labour  became  necessary,  and  the  vast  primal 
forests  were  transformed  into  smiling  plains  which 
it  was  necessary  to  water  with  the  sweat  of  men,  and 
in  which  slavery  and  misery  were  soon  seen  to  bud 
and  grow  with  the  harvests."^ 

It  was  to  the  arts  of  metallurgy  and  agriculture  that 
the  change  was  due,  because  they  led  to  a  greater 
cultivation  of  the  ground,  to  division  of  labour,  and 
finally  to  private  property,  and  all  the  disastrous  ills 
that  followed  its  institution.  It  was  not  gold  and 
silver,  as  the  poets  feign,  but  iron  and  corn,  "  which 
have  civilized  men  and  destroyed  the  human  race." 
From  the  cultivation  of  land  follows  necessarily  its 
division  and  appropriation.  "  It  is  the  labour  of 
cultivation  alone  which,  by  giving  a  right  to  the  cul- 

*  "  Discours  sur  I'lnegalite." 


SOCIALISM   BEFORE   THE    IQTH   CENTURY.       45 

tivator  over  the  produce  of  the  earth  on  which  he  has 
laboured,  gives  by  consequence  the  right  over  the  land 
itself,  at  least  until  the  following  harvest,  and  so  from 
year  to  year,  and  this,  being  a  continued  possession, 
easily  passes  into  property." 

But  property  once  established,  inequality  of  wealth 
soon  follows  ;  for  now  the  natural  differences  of  men 
have  their  opportunity.  The  strongest  will  do  more 
work,  the  most  skilful  will  draw  a  greater  advantage 
from  his  efforts,  the  most  ingenious  will  devise  means 
of  lessening  his  labour  or  will  get  a  larger  result  from 
it.  The  reward  of  the  agriculturist  and  of  the  maker  of 
ploughs  will  not  necessarily  be  equal,  as  it  will 
depend  on  the  strength  of  the  demand  of  each  for  the 
other's  product ;  the  one  may  earn  much  while  the 
other  with  difficulty  will  be  able  to  live.  Besides 
different  qualities  in  men,  different  circumstances 
will  affect  men's  fortunes  unequally. 

A  wholly  new  and  a  worse  world  opens  with  the 
installation  of  private  property  ;  human  natuie  ex- 
pands itself  in  many  directions  ;  above  all  in  evil 
directions.  There  follows  a  dark  picture  of  human 
nature  in  the  new  order,  and  a  black  list  of  all  the 
evil  passions  engendered  :  man  is  compelled  fatally, 
under  the  system,  by  his  circumstances  and  his  wants 
to  do  evil,  to  be  in  fact  a  sc  >undrel.  No  pessimist,  or 
cynic,  or  Calvinist  has  ever  drawn  a  darker  portrait 
of  man  than  Rousseau's  representation  of  him  under 
the  new  regime.  He  can  no  longer  dispense  with  his 
fellows  :  "  rich,  he  has  need  of  their  services  ;  poor,  he 
has  need  of  their  succour  ;  and  the  middle  condition 
does    not   enable    him   to   do   without     them.      He 


46  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

must  then  seek  ceaselessly  to  interest  others  in  his 
fortune,  and  to  make  them  find  it,  in  fact  or  in 
appearance,  their  profit  to  labour  for  his  advan- 
tage ;  which  makes  him  become  artful  and  over- 
reaching with  one,  hard  and  domineering  with 
another,  and  compels  him  to  impose  upon  all  whom 
he  cannot  make  to  fear  him,  while  he  finds  it  not 
his  interest  to  benefit  them.  Finally,  devouring 
ambition,  the  passion  to  raise  his  relative  fortune, 
less  from  any  real  need  than  to  exalt  himself 
above  others,  inspires  in  all  men  a  dark  desire 
to  injure  each  other,  and  a  secret  jealousy  so 
much  the  more  dangerous  that,  in  order  to 
effect  its  stroke  in  surety,  it  often  assumes  the 
mask  of  benevolence  ;  in  a  word,  competition  and 
rivalry  on  one  side,  and  on  the  other  opposition  of 
interests,  with  alwa\s  the  hidden  desire  to  make 
profit  at  the  cost  of  others ;  all  these  evils  are  the 
first  effect  of  property  and  the  inseparable  cortege 
of  the  growing  inequality." 

Such  was  the  state  to  which  primitive  and 
innocent  man  had  come,  and  private  property  was 
the  cause  of  it.  The  course  of  things  went  on  : 
when  the  land  was  all  occupied,  and  the  different 
possessions  closed  together  and  touched  each  other, 
there  were  some  men  landless  and  with  no  handi- 
crafts ;  such  were  compelled,  according  as  they  were 
spiritless  or  bold,  either  to  receive  or  take  by  force 
their  subsistence  from  the  rich ;  in  the  former  case 
as  they  did  not  receive  without  equivalent  we  had 
slaves,  in  the  latter  thieves  or  robbers.  The  rich, 
"  like   the   famished    wolf  that,  having   once  tasted 


SOCIALISM   BEFORE   THE    I9TH   CENTURY.        47 

human  flesh,  disdains  all  other  food,"  grew  enamoured 
of  domination  as  the  greatest  of  pleasures,  and  used 
their  slaves  to  subjugate  more.  ''The  lost 
equality  was  followed  by  frightful  disorder :  the 
usurpations  of  the  rich,  the  brigandage  of  the  poor, 
the  unbridled  passions  of  all,  extinguishing  natural 
pity  and  the  voice  as  yet  feeble  of  justice,  made 
men  avaricious,  greedy,  ambitious,  and  wicked.  The 
right  of  the  strong  set  aside  the  right  of  the  '  first 
occupant '  after  murderous  conflicts.  The  nascent 
Society  was  in  the  most  horrible  state  of  war.  The 
human  race  degraded  and  miserable,  no  longer  able 
to  retrace  its  steps  or  renounce  the  evil  acquisitions  it 
had  made,  and  labouring  only  to  its  shame  by  the 
abuse  of  the  faculties  that  should  have  done  it  honour 
was  upon  the  eve  of  its  ruin." 

In  fact,  the  human  race  had  at  length  slowly 
reached  the  condition  that  liobbcs  declared  to  be  the 
necessary  and  universal  condition  of  man  in  a  state  of 
nature,  namely  the  "  war  of  all  with  all."  It  was  a 
state  of  things  only  favourable  to  the  bold  lacklands 
and  lackalls,  but  very  unfavourable  to  the  rich,  who, 
while  they  had  to  bear  the  total  expenses  of  the 
general  war  as  the  only  possessors  of  superfluous 
goods,  were  yet  equally  subject  to  danger  with  their 
assailants.  "  Moreover,  on  reflecting,  they  felt  they 
could  give  no  colour  to  their  usurpations  which  rested 
on  a  precarious  and  abusive  tenure,  and  that  dc- 
p;.ndmg,  as  they  really  did,  on  force,  a  stronger  force 
miglit  take  away  what  force  had  given  without 
their  having  much  cause  of  complaint.  Even  those 
enriched  by  industry  could   not  plead  much   belter: 


43  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND  OLD. 

titles  to  their  property.  To  the  pica,  *  I  have  built 
this  wall,'  '  I  have  reclaimed  this  land,'  would  be  the 
response — '  And  who  gave  you  the  boundary  lines, 
and  on  what  pretence  are  you  to  be  paid  at  our  ex- 
pense for  a  labour  we  did  not  impose  on  you  ?  Do 
you  know  that  a  multitude  of  your  brothers  perish  or 
suffer  from  want  of  those  things  of  which  you  have  a 
superfluity,  and  that  it  would  require  the  consent  ex- 
press and  unanimous  of  the  human  race  for  you  to 
appropriate  from  the  common  subsistence  anything 
in  excess  of  your  own  ?  " 

In  the  great  strait  in  which  they  were  placed, 
having  neither  good  reasons  nor  }'et  sufficient  force 
on  their  side,  the  rich  summoned  craft  and  cunning  to 
their  aid.  They  conceived  a  great  idea — "  a  project 
the  most  astute  that  ever  entered  the  human 
spirit — by  which  to  convert  their  adversaries  into 
their  defenders,  to  inspire  them  with  wholly  new 
maxims,  and  to  introduce  institutions  which  would 
be  as  favourable  to  them  as  Natural  Law  and  the  law 
of  the  strong  were  the  contrary."  The  rude  and 
unreflecting  multitude  were  easily  seduced  by  their 
plausible  reasons  to  carry  out  their  aims.  "  Let  us 
unite,"  said  the  crafty  rich,  "  to  guarantee  the  feeble 
from  oppression,  to  check  the  ambitious,  and  to  assure 
to  each  one  the  possession  of  what  he  has.  Let  us 
institute  laws  of  justice  and  of  peace  to  which  all  will 
be  compelled  to  conform,  which  will  make  no  distinc- 
tion of  persons,  and  which  will  repair  to  some  degree 
the  caprice  of  fortune  by  subjecting  equally  the 
powerful  and  the  feeble  to  mutual  duties.  In  one  word, 
in  place  of  turning  our  forces  against  each  other,  let 


SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE    I9TH   CENTURY.       49 

US  unite  them  into  one  supreme  power  over  all, 
which  will  govern  us  by  wise  laws,  protect 
and  defend  all  the  members  of  the  association, 
repulse  the  common  enemy,  and  maintain  us  in  an 
eternal  concord."  This  succeeded  :  and  thus  was 
born,  according  to  Rousseau,  Civil  Society  and  Laws 
"  which  gave  new  fetters  to  the  feeble,  and  new  forces 
to  the  rich ;  which  destroyed  beyond  recovery  natural 
liberty,  fixed  for  ever  the  law  of  property  and  of 
inequality,  converted  a  clever  usurpation  into  an 
irrevocable  right,  and,  for  the  profit  of  a  few  ambitious 
men,  subjected  henceforth  all  the  human  race  to 
servitude  and  misery." 

The  establishment  of  one  political  society  necessi- 
tated the  like  transformation  amongst  all  other 
nations  and  tribes,  in  order  to  concentrate  their 
strength,  and  to  prevent  their  own  subjugation.  The 
State  of  Nature  and  of  War  subsists  thereafter  only 
between  political  societies  or  States.  And  what  terrible 
wars  and  butcheries  have  followed,  so  terrible  that  the 
slaughter  attending  a  single  battle  often  far  exceeds  all 
those  killed  violently  during  ages  in  the  state  of  nature. 
PIcre  the  modern  Anarchists,  who  would  return  to 
the  State  of  Nature  to  avoid  national  wars,  have  bor- 
rowed a  hint.  From  the  foUo.ving  they  may  take 
another  :  "  In  spite  of  all  the  labours  of  the  sagcst 
legislators,  the  political  state  always  remained  im- 
perfect, because  it  was  almost  the  work  of  chance^ 
and  being  badly  begun,  time  in  discovering  its  de- 
fects and  suggesting  remedies  could  never  repair 
its  fundamental  vices  ;  they  tinkered  without  cessa- 
tion, in  place  of  beginning  by  clearing  the  ground  and 


50  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND  OLD. 

removing  the  old  materials,  in  order  to  raise  a  good 
structure,  as  did  Lycnrgus  at  Sparta." 

The  Society  thus  formed  was  at  first  held  very 
loosely  together  by  a  few  general  conventions,  which 
each  one  engaged  himself  to  observe.  Experience 
soon  showed  the  feebleness  of  such  a  Constitution. 
It  was  easy  to  infringe  the  engagements,  and  yet  to 
avoid  punishment.  The  law,  such  as  it  was,  was 
eluded  in  infinite  ways  ;  till  at  length  it  became  ne- 
cessary to  hand  over  the  public  authority  to  magis- 
trates— a  dangerous  deposit,  because  the  magistrates 
in  time  made  their  offices  hereditary,  and  came  to 
regard  themselves  as  the  masters  of  the  State,  of 
which  they  were  only  the  functionaries,  and  their 
fellow-citizens  as  their  slaves. 

In  the  progress  of  inequality,  the  establishment  of 
law  and  the  right  of  property  was  the  first  term,  the 
institution  of  magistrates  the  second,  the  third  and 
the  last  term  was  the  transformation  of  delegated 
authority  into  absolute  authority  ;  from  the  first  we 
have  the  distinction  of  rich  and  poor  ;  from  the  second 
that  of  the  powerful  and  the  weak  ;  from  the  third,  that 
of  master  and  slave  ;  the  last  degree  of  inequality  and 
that  to  which  the  others  tend,  "  until,  at  least,  new  revo- 
lutions dissolve  the  Government  completely,  or  bring 
it  nearer  to  a  legitimate  institution." 

Four  kinds  of  inequality  are  distinguished  :  those  of 
rank,  riches,  power,  and  personal  merit ;  of  these  four, 
thou"h  the  personal  qualities  are  the  source  of  all 
the  rest  originally,  it  is  that  of  riches  to  which  they 
reduce  themselves  in  the  end  ;  because  wealth  being 


SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE    IQTH   CENTURY.        5 1 

more  immediately  useful  and  easy  of  transfer,  the 
holder  of  it  "avails  himself  easily  of  its  force  to  buy 
all  the  rest,"  and  the  extent  to  which  this  is  actually 
done  measures  the  degree  of  corruption  of  a  society 
and  a  people. 

That  of  modern  society  and  civilization  is  extreme. 
Gone  far  from  the  path  of  Nature  and  Reason,  we 
are  consumed  with  foolish  desires  for  factitious 
honours  and  distinctions  which  make  all  men  com- 
petitors and  rivals,  or  rather  enemies.  To  such  an 
extreme  degree  has  man  become  denaturalized,  that 
we  have  finally  a  "  handful  of  the  powerful  and  rich  at 
the  summit  of  grandeur  and  fortune,  whilst  the  crowd 
crawl  beneath  in  obscurity  and  misery  ;  the  first  not 
really  valuing  the  things  they  possess,  unless  so  far  as 
the  others  are  deprived  of  them,  and  who,  without 
other  change  of  state,  would  cease  to  be  happy  if  the 
people  ceased  to  be  miserable,"  their  misery  giving  a 
relish  and  a  sense  of  enjoyment,  their  pain  an  added 
pleasure — a  terrible  accusation,  but  one  which  happily, 
though  in  some  cases  there  are  faint  grounds  for  it, 
must  be  pronounced  grossly  exaggerated,  and  in  many 
cases  the  reverse  of  the  truth.  He  proceeds  in  his 
indictment  :  The  people  are  oppressed  ;  their  rights  are 
extinguished  ;  their  murmurs  treated  as  sedition  ;  their 
goods  are  forcibly  taken  from  them  in  the  shape  of 
taxes,  whilst  mutual  dissensions  and  hatred  are  sown 
amongst  them  by  their  chiefs  and  rulers,  in  order 
that  they  may  be  the  more  easily  held  in  subjection 
tiie  more  they  arc  divided. 

Such   disorders    intensified  lead  at   length  to  the 
despotism  of  one ;   the  last  term  of  incquahty,  and 


52  SOCIALISM    NEW   AND   OLD. 

that  which  completes  the  cycle.  For  now  all  become 
once  again  equal,  in  that  they  are  nothing  before  the 
despot.  We  have  once  more  a  return  to  the  law  of 
the  strongest  and  a  new  State  of  Nature,  because  the 
tyrant  is  only  master  whilst  he  is  the  strongest,  which 
is  the  State  of  Nature  save  that  it  is  worse  than  the 
original  state  because  it  has  been  engendered  by  the 
excess  of  corruption. 

Such,  in  outline,  is  Rousseau's  famous  story  of  the 
fall  of  man — a  very  different  one  from  that  of  Moses 
or  of  Milton.  The  spirit  of  covetousness  is  here  Satan, 
the  tempter  ;  Property  is  the  forbidden  fruit,  from 
which  has  come  evil  and  misery  into  the  world  ;  and 
Law,  in  the  hands  of  one  or  a  few  powerful  ones,  has 
been  the  means  whereby  the  evils  have  been  kept  up. 
Differing  alike  from  Hobbes  and  Locke  in  this,  but 
agreeing  with  modern  Anarchists  and  many  past 
Law  Reformers,  he  regards  laws  in  general  as  favour- 
ing the  rich  and  powerful  and  oppressing  the  poor. 

In  the  "  Contrat  Social"  (1762)  we  have  Rous- 
seau's ideal  of  a  good  government,  and  his  theory  of 
the  true  principles  of  political  rights.  The  only  legi- 
timate base  of  civil  society  is  the  fundamental  Social 
Pact  or  Contract  which  runs  as  follows  :  "  Each  of  us 
puts  in  common  his  goods,  his  person,  his  life,  and 
all  his  powers  under  the  supreme  direction  of  the 
general  will,  and  we  collectively  receive  each  member 
as  an  indivisible  part  of  the  whole."  This  act  of  asso- 
ciation produces  a  body  moral  and  collective,  called 
formerly  City,  but  now  Republic  or  body  politic,  which 
is  the  State  when  it  is  passive,  the  Sovereign  when  it 
is  active.   The  contractors  are  collectively  the  people  ; 


SOCIALISM   BEFORE   THE    tpTH   CENTURY.        53 

individually,  as  sharers  in  the  sovereign  power,  they 
arc  citizens ;  and,  as  governed  by  the  laws,  sub- 
jects. 

The  people  collectively  form  the  sovereign.  The 
exercise  of  the  General  Will  is  the  sovereignty.  The 
general  will  when  enunciated  is  Law.  The  aim  of 
law  is  the  general  good,  and  not  the  good  of  indivi- 
duals or  classes.  It  should  be  limited  to  what  is 
good  for  all,  or  at  least  for  the  great  majority.  But 
though  the  people  must  be  supposed  to  desire  and 
to  will  the  common  good,  it  does  not  always  know 
it;  its  will  is  always  right,  but  intellectually  it  may 
be  deceived.  Hence  the  need  of  wise  legislators,  es- 
pecially at  the  first  formation  of  States,  to  furnish 
laws  and  institutions  conformable  to  the  general 
will  and  the  common  good  ;  to  what  the  general 
will  would  be  if  all  were  fully  enlightened.  This  did 
Moses,  and  in  later  times,  Mahomet,  great  and  extra- 
ordinary men,  who,  to  give  a  greater  sanction  to  the 
laws,  attributed  their  own  wisdom  to  divine  inspira- 
tion. As  to  the  common  good,  Liberty  and  Equality 
are  its  two  chief  ingredients,  and  the  first  aims  of 
great  legislators  ;  as  much  individual  liberty  as  is 
compatible  with  submission  to  laws  made  for  the 
general  good,  and  above  all,  a  reasonable,  not  a  com- 
plete, equality.  Liberty  is  not  possible  with  great  in- 
equality of  material  conditions.  In  addition  to  these 
two  main  constituents  of  the  general  good  in  all 
countries  and  times,  the  great  law-givers  in  tlicir 
laws  and  institutions  should  have  special  regard  to 
the  peculiar  national  bent  or  genius  of  the  people,  as 
well  as  to  their  physical  environment  ;  otherwise,  if 


54  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

these  two  things  are  left  out  of  the  law-giver's  purview, 
or  if  he  runs  counter  to  them,  the  state  will  never  be 
solidly  based. 

Turning  from  what  should  be,  to  what  actually 
is,  as  matter  of  fact  there  are  few  good  govern- 
ments. Liberty  does  not  exist,  equality  still  less,  and 
laws  far  from  aiming  at  them,  have  been  employed  ^ 
chiefly  to  maintain  the  rich  in  his  wealth,  and  the 
poor  in  his  misery  and  subjection.  Even  if  a  good 
political  system  were  possessed  by  a  people,  it 
would  only  last  for  a  period,  because  all  things  human, 
including  the  best  States,  grow  old  and  die,  and 
tend  to  degenerate  before  they  die.  The  most  that  a 
people  could  hope  for,  supposing  that  they  had  a  good 
polity,  would  be  to  delay  its  decline,  to  lengthen 
its  life,  by  interesting  themselves  in  public  matters, 
instead  of  deputing  the  work  to  others,  as  not  being 
their  own  concern.  When  they  become  indifferent 
and  prefer  ease,  gain,  or  anything  else  to  liberty,  the 
state  is  already  on  the  fatal  incline. 

The  people  may  part  with  the  Executive  power,  in 
fact  they  must  do  so  ;  they  must  never  lose  control 
of  the  Legislative  power,  if  they  would  remain  free 
and  be  the  real  source  of  the  laws  they  impose  on 
themselves.  They  are  free  so  long  as  they  submit 
only  to  laws  imposed  by  themselves  ;  but  if  they 
part  with  the  legislative  power,  their  officials  will  be- 
come their  masters.  The  safeguards  by  which  the 
usurpation  of  the  sovereign  legislative  power  by  the 
executive  may  be  prevented,  are  periodic  popular 
assemblies,  which  should  meet  by  law  without  requir- 
ing special  summons,  at  which  two  questions  should 


SOCIALISM   BEFORE   THE    IQTH   CENTURY.       55 

be  submitted.  The  first,  whether  it  please  the  sovereign 
to  preserve  the  existing  form  of  government ;  the 
second,  whether  it  please  the  people  to  leave  the 
administration  to  those  who  are  actually  charged 
with  it.  Certain  means  of  strengthening  the  consti- 
tution of  the  state  are  pointed  out ;  the  modes  of 
election  of  officers  and  functionaries  in  democracies 
and  monarchies  compared  ;  the  dictatorship  as  a 
temporary  expedient  in  a  time  of  national  crisis  is 
permitted,  and  the  relations  of  religion  to  the  state 
are  laid  doun,  the  chief  of  which  is  the  toleration  of 
all  religions  that  tolerate  others,  provided  only  that 
their  dogmas  are  not  contrary  to  the  duties  of 
citizens. 

The  consequences  of  these  two  works  on  politics,  to- 
gether with  his  other  works  on  education,  art,  morals, 
and  the  conduct  of  life,  were  prodigious.  Not 
since  the  voice  of  Luther  was  heard,  hardly 
since  the  words  of  the  Gospel  were  spoken, 
had  there  been  words  so  charged  with  far-reaching 
effects  ;  words  which  stirred  thinkers,  poets,  the 
middle  classes,  the  people ;  words  which  have  been 
the  fountain-head  of  all  revolutionary,  communistic 
and  socialistic  literature  since,  and  whose  influence 
will  be  felt  while  the  earth  revolves  in  space. 

The  irrevocable  words  were  spoken  that  had  so 
long  waited  for  the  right  speaker,  and  which  ex- 
pressed the  thought  obscurely  felt  by  millions  of 
human  hearts.  The  multitude  were  awakened  to 
consciousness  by  them.  The  poor  had  found  a  power- 
ful pleader,  the  dumb  millions  a  voice,  Democracy  its 
rcfounder,  and  Humanity  in  the  eighteenth  century 


$6  SOCIALISM    NEW   AND   OLD. 

its  typical  representative  man,  who  gave  vent  to  its  in- 
most sentiments,  troubles,  aspirations,  and  audacious 
spirit  of  revolt.  Whilst  moralists  in  England  were 
elaborating  their  moral  systems  and  hatching  theories 
of  moral  sentiments,  suddenly  there  appeared  this 
disturber  of  symmetrical  systems,  announcing  that 
morality  and  moral  obligation  are  largely  meaning- 
less, so  long  as  society,  the  social  structure  and  the 
social  order  in  its  essence,  reposes  on  injustice  sup- 
ported by  fictions  and  falsehoods;  and  with  one 
result,  if  his  message  be  true,  that  the  moral  systems 
become  suddenly  vanity,  and  the  whole  subject  must 
be  considered  afresh  from  the  new  point  of  view. 
In  like  manner,  whilst  the  political  writers  and  jurists 
were  repairing  their  old  theories  in  language  abstract 
and  formidable,  here  was  a  man  of  original  insight 
with  a  fresh  account  of  the  actual  origin  of  law,  as  well 
as  of  its  only  legitiniate  origin ;  with  a  new  theory  of 
society  and  law  as  they  ought  to  be  ;  a  man  of  genius, 
sincere  and  earnest,  who  has  suffered  from  the  evils  he 
denounces ;  one  who  can  speak  clear  words,  new 
words,  acute  and  ingenious,  and  felt  by  the  hearers  to 
be  largely  true,  though  never  heard  before  ;  who 
does  not  speak  merely  to  the  learned,  but  who  can 
make  any  intelligent  reader  comprehend  him  ;  one, 
too,  who,  while  he  can  cut  in  twain  a  sophism  as 
skilfully  as  the  most  accomplished  of  the  dialecticians, 
or  as  the  most  learned  of  the  philosophers,  at  times 
throws  out  memorable  sentences  that  the  rude  swain 
or  unlettered  artisan  can  comprehend.  Once  again 
in  the  world  was  seen  the  marvellous  power  of  "  the 
Word  "  when  uttered  by  a  man  of  genius,  with  a  heart 


SOCIALISM    BEFORE   THE    I9TH   CENTURY.        57 

beating  for  humanity,  who  had  the  eye  to  see  and  the 
courage  to  speak  ;  above  all,  when  he  speaks  the 
word  that  his  Age  wants  said.  For  Rousseau  merely 
said  best  what  many  in  his  age  were  endeavouring  to 
say  ;  he  merely  expressed  most  clearly,  sincerely,  fully 
and  eloquently  the  thought  and  sentiment  of  his  age 
everywhere  felt  in  the  air,  the  spirit  of  his  time  which 
was  seeking  for  a  voice  and  found  it  at  length  in 
him. 

They  were  terrible  as  well  as  memorable  words : 
charged  with  class  hatreds  which  they  were  destined 
to  evoke  ;  fraught  with  war  and  revolution  and 
anarchy  ;  words  which,  little  as  their  author  intended 
it,  brought  not  peace  on  earth,  but  a  sword.  Never- 
theless it  was  necessary  that  what  was  true  in  them 
should  be  spoken,  and  on  Rousseau,  first  amongst  the 
moderns,  fell  the  burden  of  the  old  prophets.  There 
are  errors  in  his  writings  ;  he  was  wanting  in  our 
ampler  and  more  accurate  historical  knowledge  ;  he 
exaggerates  social  evils ;  he  needlessly  blackens 
human  nature,  as  it  now  actually  is,  since  if  man, 
in  the  course  of  evolution,  has  acquired  new  vices,  he 
has  also  developed  glorious  virtues.  Further,  his 
account  of  the  origin  and  evolution  of  law,  and  of 
property,  does  not  accord  with  the  results  of  recent 
historical  research  into  the  early  condition  of  men. 
There  was  no  social  contract  of  the  kind  described. 
Law,  like  most  other  things,  began  at  a  germinal 
point,  and  went  tiirough  slow  insensible  changes, 
which  can  be  only  roughly  marked  into  stages — 
patriarchal  commands,  customs  long  obeyed  and 
taken  up  as  laws  after  states  were  formed,  the  com- 


58  SOCIALISM    NEW   AND   OLD. 

pilation  of- these  by  great  lawgivers,  like  Lycurgus, 
Manu,  Solon,  finally,  legislation  by  the  sovereign 
body.  And  the  like  is  true  of  the  formation  of  States 
or  civil  societies  which  were  not,  any  more  than  laws, 
born  on  a  determinate  day,  but  were  for  the  most 
part  the  result  of  a  slow  evolution. 

He  is  wrong  as  to  the  primitive  state  of  man. 
Our  remote  ancestors  appear  to  have  been  neither 
happy  nor  amiable  so  far  as  the  somewhat  doubtful 
light  of  historical  research  has  fallen  on  them  in  early 
times,  or  the  more  doubtful  light  of  scientific  specu- 
lation, in  prehistoric  times.  It  is  questionable  if  they 
ever  lived  solitary,  even  in  prehistoric  times.  And 
it  is  certain  that  the  savages  of  to-day  are  not 
happier  than  the  masses  of  the  people  in  civilized 
communities,  though  probably  they  are  happier,  or  at 
least  feel  less  pain  and  misery,  than  the  members  of  our 
lowest  social  stratum.  They  do  indeed  enjoy  freedom 
from  all  laws,  and  from  every  restraint  except  custom, 
and  they  have  a  certain  sense  of  self-sufificingness,  and 
perhaps  a  sense  of  completeness  of  life  beyond  what 
is  possible  to  our  labouring  population,  who,  through 
excessive  division  of  labour,  must  devote  their 
efforts  to  doing  the  same  thing  continually.  But  these 
advantages  of  the  sav^ages  are  purchased  at  great 
cost.  Their  numbers  are  relatively  few,  and  these 
few  can  with  difficulty  satisfy  even  the  lowest  and 
most  elementary  needs  of  life. 

He  is  wrong  in  maintaining  that  metallurgy  and 
agriculture  destroyed  the  human  race  in  any  other 
sense  than  that  they  made  possible  the  first  great 
departure  from  the  nomad  or  savage  life,  and  led,  as 


SOCIALISM    BEFORE   THE    I9TH   CENTURY.        59 

Rousseau    rightly  shows   they  did    lead,   to   private 
property  in  land. 

Nevertheless  he  was  largely  right.  There  is  a 
broad  general  truth  in  his  historical  stages,  and  a 
truth  partial,  but  terrible,  running  through  his 
denunciations  of  society  and  civilization,  which  is 
independent  of  the  accuracy  of  his  historical  facts. 
We  recognize  the  general  soundness,  strictness,  and 
ingenuity  of  his  reasoning,  the  clearness  of  his 
perceptions,  the  sincerity  of  his  convictions,  the 
fervour  and  earnestness  of  his  eloquence.  He 
remains  the  prophet  and  founder  of  modern 
Democracy,  the  forerunner  of  modern  Socialism,  and 
one  of  the  most  remarkable  of  the  sons  of  men. 


V. 

As  to  the  question  how  far  Rousseau  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  a  Socialist,  the  answer  depends  on  the 
particular  sense  we  attach  to  the  word.  He  cer- 
tainly was  not  a  Socialist  in  the  sense  of  Collcc- 
tivist,  nor  can  he  be  regarded  as  a  Communist,  though 
there  are  arguments  that  favour  Communism  in  the 
"Discours  sur  I'lncgalite."  ^  It  was  undoubtedly  his 
opinion  that  men  should  never  have  left  the  state  of 

'  In  particular  the  well-known  passap[e  :  "  Le  premier  qui, 
ayant  cnclos  un  terrain,  s'avisa  de  dire  ;  Ccci  est  a  inoi,  fiit  Ic 
vrai  fonclateur  de  la  soci(jtd  civile.  Que  dc  crimes,  dc  niiscrcs 
et  d'horreurs  n'eut  pas  dpargnds  au  j;enrc  humain  celui  (|iii 
arrachant  Ics  pieiix  et  coinblant  Ics  fossds  cut  cri<5  ii  ses  scin- 
blahlcs  ;  Gardez-vous  d'dcoutercet  iniposteur  !  vous  t^tcs  perdus 
si  vous  oublicz  que  Ics  fruits  sont  i  tous  et  que  la  tcrrc  n'est  i 
personne." 


60  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

Nature  and  the  primitive  Communism  (their  doing  so 
being  partly  voluntary)  ;  that  so  far  as  voluntary  it 
was  a  fatal  and  nearly  irreparable  mistake.  But  he  is 
far  from  urging  any  attempt  to  return  to  it  (other  than 
by  endeavouring  after  a  more  natural  and  less  conven- 
tional life),  because,  on  his  principles  a  civilized 
society  can  no  more  return  on  its  old  steps  than  an 
old  man  can  become  young  again  ;  civilized  society 
being  in  his  view  a  society  in  old  age,  and  subject 
to  all  the  pains  and  infirmities  of  old  age.  The 
most  that  can  now  be  done  is  to  make  the  best  of 
the  case,  to  mitigate  the  infirmities  and  defer  decay 
by  good  laws  and  institutions  well  administered,  and 
by  good  manners  and  morals  in  harmony  with  the 
laws.  In  the  "  Contrat  Social,"he  tells  us  that  in  a  pro- 
perly constituted  government  the  General  Will  should 
prevail.  In  the  "Economie  Politique,"  he  further 
tells  us  that  virtue  and  morality  consist  in  conform- 
ing to  the  general  will  as  expressed  in  good  laws. 
If  there  were  generally  such  conformity,  if  such  laws, 
wisely  framed  as  expressions  of  the  general  will,  were 
obeyed  by  the  people  and  administered  by  the 
magistrates  and  elected  rulers ;  above  all,  if  the 
people  were  early  trained  to  respect  the  laws,  and 
to  love  their  country,  life  even  in  our  modern  effete 
societies  would  not  be  at  all  a  bad  thing — in  fact,  he 
adds,  regardless  of  consistency,  "there  would  be  little 
wanting  to  make  the  people  happy."  This  is  un- 
doubtedly a  contradiction  of  the  doctrine  in  his 
former  work  ;  but  the  essential  thing  to  note  is  that 
we  have  here  his  later  ideas  ;  that  they  bore  memor- 
able fruit  thirty  years  later  when   the  attempt  was 


SOCIALISM   BEFORE   THE    I9TH   CENTURY.        6 1 

made  to  realize  them  in  France  ;  and  that  the  doc- 
trine of  the  supremacy  of  the  will  of  the  people, 
underlies,  nominally  at  least,  all  modern  popular 
governments. 

He  repeats  that  a  primary  aim  of  such  a  govern- 
ment should  be  to  prevent  too  great  inequality  of 
property  ;  and  the  equalizing  process  should  be 
effected,  "  not  by  taking  riches  from  their  possessors, 
but  by  giving  to  all  the  means  of  increasing  wealth  ; 
not  by  building  hospitals  or  almhouses  for  the  poor, 
but  by  guaranteeing  the  citizens  from  becoming 
poor,  by  laws  and  institutions  "  ;  for,  as  he  pointedly 
says,  it  is  precisely  because  there  is  such  a  powerful 
tendency  in  things  to  inequality,  that  it  must  be  met 
by  the  constant  counteraction  and  pressure  of  laws 
and  institutions.  In  various  specified  ways,  some 
economically  sound,  some  erroneous,  governments 
can  aid  in  the  general  diffusion  of  wealth.  ]3ut 
above  all  things  it  is  necessary  to  first  form  good 
citizens,  and  to  have  good  citizens  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  take  them  early  in  hand  ;  "  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  educate  the  children."  Education  should  be 
a  function  of  the  state,  not  of  the  parent.  Then 
follow  his  later  views  on  private  property  ;  in  which 
we  find  the  statement  that  seems  at  first  remarkable 
as  coming  from  Rousseau,  "  that  the  rights  of  pro- 
perty arc  the  most  sacred  of  all  the  rights  of  citizens, 
more  so  in  some  respects  than  liberty  itself."  Strange 
too  that  we  find  good  arguments  against  curtail- 
ing inheritance,  which  have  been  reproduced  by  Mill 
("  Pol.  Economy,"  Book  II.,  chap,  ii.) :  one  being  the 
sensible   and   well-known  one   that  the  children  are 


62  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

frequently  co-labourers  with   the   parent ;   the  other 
that  there  is  nothing  so  unsettling  in  a  state  as  great 
vicissitudes  of  fortune  in  its  citizens  which  the  aboli- 
tion of  inheritance  would  involve.     It  is  chiefly  by 
judicious  taxation,  on  which  he  reasons  ingeniously 
and  acutely,  that  Rousseau,  equally  with  Montesquieu, 
would  prevent  inequality.     "  It  is  by  taxes  like  tnese," 
he  says,  "  which  ease  the  poor,  and  fall  on  the  rich, 
that  we  must  prevent  the  continual  increase  of  in- 
equality of  fortune,  the  enslavement  by  the  rich  of  a 
multitude  of  labourers  and  useless  servants,  the  mul- 
tiplication of  idle   men  in  the  large  cities,  and  the 
desertion  of  the  country  districts."     In  the  first  place, 
other  things  equal,  the  man   who  has  ten  times  the 
wealth    of  another,  should  •  pay  ten  times   his  tax  ; 
secondly,   one   who   has    no   more  than  necessaries, 
should  not  pay  any  tax.     The  man  who  has  more,  if 
the  need  should  arise,  might  fairly  be  required  to  pay 
the  whole  surplus  above  necessaries.     The  rich  draw 
more  advantages  from  government   and    the    social 
union  ;  they  get  all   the    lucrative  posts,    sinecures, 
favours,  exemptions.     The  law  favours  them,  takes 
every  pains  to  protect  them,  but  hardly  ever  punishes 
them.     "  The  rich   man    gets  a  hundred  things,  for 
which  he    pays    not   a    sou."     The    poor    man    gets 
nothing,     neither    goods    nor   succour.       With    the 
greatest  difficulty  can  he  get  even  justice.     Then  the 
losses  of  the  poor  are  less  reparable,   and   the  diffi- 
culty of  acquisition  is  infinitely  greater.     Moreover, 
what  the  poor  pay  in  taxes  is  for  ever  lost  to  them 
in  the  money  form,  while  it  is  mostly  into  the  hands 
of  rich  people — those  who  have  a  share  in  the  govern- 


SOCIALISM   BEFORE   THE    19TH   CENTURY.        63 

ment,  or  those  who  have  influence  with  these — that 
soon  or  late  the  product  of  the  tax  passes. 

On  all  these  grounds  taxation  should  have  regard 
to  the  different  conditions  of  the  contributors,  and 
especially  as  respects  superfluities,  and  so  should  not 
fall,  as  it  generally  does,  on  the  people,  but  on  the 
rich.  Sumptuary  taxes, — taxes  on  costly  articles, 
livery,  carriages,  the  mass  of  objects  of  luxury,  or 
amusement — are  recommended  as  forming  the  least 
onerous  and  most  certain  means  of  raising  a  revenue 
for  the  State. 

Thus  then,  finally,  we  see  that  Rousseau  was  a 
Socialist.  He  is  a  preacher  of  equality,  and  the 
most  powerlul.  The  greatest  evil  is  inequality.  A 
good  government  should  aim  by  good  laws  and  wise 
measures  at  preventing  inequality  from  growing  too 
great.  Education  should  be  a  state  function.  But 
all  this  is  Socialism,  and  State  Socialism  ;  not  Social- 
ism in  the  new  sense  of  collective  ownership  and  co- 
operative labour,  because  this  particular  form  of  the 
general  thing  would  have  been  irrelevant  to  the  eco- 
nomical circumstances  of  the  time,  and  inconceivable 
before  the  industrial  revolution,  and  the  large  system 
of  production  and  concentration  of  capital  in  lew 
hands  which  was  the  result  of  that  revolution,  itself 
scarcely  then  begun.  Something,  indeed,  like  the 
idea  of  land  nationalization  he  had  in  his  mind;^  to 
be  effected  by  the  relief  of  the  peasants  from  accu- 
mulated feudal  and  fiscal  burdens,  so  as  to  leave 
them  owners,  as  was  in  fact  largely  done  by  the  Rc- 

*  In  the  "  Economic  Politique,"  in  particular,  he  gives  expres- 
sion to  iL 


64  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

volution  ;  but  he  had  no  idea  of  the  nationalization  of 
capital,  the  favourite  idea  of  Collectivist  Socialists. 
He  aimed  in  general  at  the  diffusion  of  property, 
which  if  it  were  done  and  could  be  maintained,  the 
better  part  of  the  new  Socialists'  end  would  be 
secured  without  confiscation  and  the  danger  attending 
a  general  social  transformation. 


VI. 

With  respect  to  Rousseau's  direct  influence  on 
Socialistic  development,  M.  Janet  thinks  that  he 
has  "  furnished  to  the  Socialists  formulas  rather 
than  arguments  ;  "  but  allows  that  "  he  is  incontest- 
ably  the  founder  of  modern  communism."  On  the 
other  hand,  M.  de  Laveleye  traces  the  Socialism  of 
Fichte,  which  contains  Collectivism  in  germ,  as  well 
as  the  Anarchism  of  Bakunin,  to  the  ideas  of 
Rousseau. 

The  Abbe  Mably,  however,  M.  Janet  admits,  is  a  dis- 
ciple of  Rousseau.  In  his  "  Legislation  ou  Principes 
des  Lois"  (1776)  Mably  attacks  private  property, 
and  defends  Communism  as  the  natural  system  ;  so 
natural  that  the  real  difficulty  is  to  explain  how 
property  ever  arose.  Men  are  equal  ;  as  they  issue 
from  the  hands  of  Nature,  they  are  all  similar.  It  is 
the  inequality  of  fortune  that  makes,  through  in- 
equality of  education,  the  great  seeming  inequality 
of  talents  and  ability.  Some  natural  differences  of 
gift  there  are,  but  they  are  not  great,^  and  they  bear 

*  In  maintaining  this  proposition,  Mably  is  in  agreement 
with  Hobbes  for  the  most  part,  but  not  with  the  St.  Simonian 


SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE    I9TH   CENTURY.       65 

no  proportion  to  the  monstrous  inequalities  of 
fortune. 

But  though  Communism  is  according  to  Nature, 
Mably  knows  as  well  as  Rousseau  that  it  is  imprac- 
ticable for  the  present  ;  the  opposite  system  of  pro- 
perty having  such  deep  and  widespread  roots.  The 
only  thing  left  to  be  done  is  for  legislators  to  aim  at 
a  return  to  Communism  by  slow  stages,  or  at  least 
to  take  practicable  steps  in  its  direction.  To  this  end, 
he  recommends  measures  some  of  them  similar  to 
those  suggested  by  Rousseau  ;  namely,  direct  taxes  on 
land  ;  sumptuary  laws  ;  laws  regulating  successions  ; 
prohibition  of  testaments ;  agrarian  laws  limiting 
the  extent  of  landed  property. 

The  cruder  Communism  of  Morellet  as  given  in 
his  Code  of  Nature  (17S5)  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  due  to  the  influence  of  Rousseau,  but  rather  to 
general  ideas  of  the  kind  "in  the  air;"  yet  as  his 
scheme  was  that  which,  according  to  M.  Janet, 
BaboE-uf  afterwards  attempted  to  carry  out  by  force  in 
France,  and  as  our  modern  Collcctivists  appear  to 
have  taken  some  hints  from  it,  it  may  be  referred  to 
here.  MorcUct's  fundamental  laws  arc  three  :  no 
property  ;  every  one  to  be  a  public  servant  or 
functionary ; "  and  every  one  to  do  real  work,  as 
insisted  on  in  the  Collectivism  of  to-day.     Production 

Socialists,  nor  witli  the  common  verdict  of  mankind,  so  lonij  as 
Nature  produces  Newtons,  Watts,  or  in  general  what  are  allied 
men  of  genius. 

•  This  is  a  point  much  insisted  upon  by  the  Collcctivist 
Socialists  :  sec  Gronlund's  "  Co-operative  Commonwealth," 
p.  146. 


66  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

and  distribution  are  to  be  regulated  by  the  State  ; 
education  likewise,  and  in  fact  the  whole  of  life,  as  in 
More's  "Utopia,"  to  the  circle  of  ideas  in  which,  though 
even  less  practicable  in  the  eighteenth  century  than 
in  the  sixteenth,  Morellet's  scheme  belongs. 

A  much  nearer  approach  to  the  Socialism  of  to-day 
is  made  by  Fichte,  the  great  German  idealist  philo- 
sopher. His  theory  of  property  is  remarkable,  and 
his  practical  scheme  founded  on  it  was  prophetic,  if 
not  suggestive  of  the  Collectivist  scheme.  According 
to  Fichte,  the  only  legitimate  origin  of  property  is 
labour.  Whoever  does  not  work,  has  no  right  to  the 
means  of  existence  from  society.  On  the  other  hand, 
he  who  has  not  the  means  of  living  is  not  bound  to 
recognize  or  respect  the  property  of  others,  seeing 
that  as  regards  him  the  principles  of  the  social  con- 
tract have  been  violated.^  "  Every  one  should  have 
some  property  ;  society  owes  to  all  the  means  of 
work,  and  all  should  work  in  order  to  live ;  "  princi- 
ples which  if  logically  carried  out  would  justify  the 
right  to  labour  and  a  good  deal  of  the  Socialist 
creed.  But  Fichte  does  more  than  lay  down  the 
principles  on  which  society  should  be  based  as  regards 
property.  He  sketches  in  clear  and  bold  outlines 
the  form  of  a  society  and  an  industrial  system  em- 
bodying his  ideas  of  right  and  social  justice.  "  Pro- 
duction and  distribution  should  be  collectively  orga- 
nized ;  every  one  should  receive  for  a  fixed  amount 
of  labour  a  fixed  amount  of  capital,  which  would 
constitute  his  property  according  to  right."    Property 

'  Laveleye's  "Socialism  of  To  day.'* 


SOCIALISM   BEFORE   THE  I9TH   CENTURY.        &^ 

would  thus  be  made  universal.  In  the  spirit  of 
Rousseau,  he  maintains  that  "no person  should  enjoy 
superfluities  so  long  as  any  person  lacks  necessaries  ; 
for  the  right  of  property  in  objects  of  luxury  can 
have  no  foundation  until  each  citizen  has  his  share 
in  the  necessaries  of  life.  Farmers  and  labourers 
should  form  partnerships  so  as  to  produce  the  greatest 
result  with  the  least  exertion  " — an  ensemble  of  ideas 
which,  as  M.  de  Laveleye,  says,  are  "  manifestly  in- 
spired by  Rousseau  and  the  eighteenth-century 
philosophers,  and  in  which  we  have  the  essential 
ideas  of  contemporary  Socialism  as  regards  both  the 
notion  of  right  and  its  realization."  ^  In  the  notion  in 
particular  that  for  a  "  fixed  amount  of  labour,  every 
one  should  receive  a  fixed  amount  of  capital,"  it  is 
not  difficult  to  see  in  germ  the  idea  of  Karl  Marx 
that  the  quantity  of  social  labour  measured  in  time, 
is  the  measure  of  value,  and  still  more  easy  to  per- 
ceive that  it  is  identical  with  the  CoUectivist  law  of 
distribution  that  all  should  receive,  in  return  for  hours 
of  labour,  labour  cheques,  or  goods  that  cost  an  equal 
number  of  hours  of  labour.  In  fact,  if  we  join  to 
this  Morellet's  idea  that  every  one  is  to  be  a 
functionary  of  the  State,  we  have  in  outline  and  in 
essence  the  whole  of  the  new  Socialism  on  its  con- 
structive, as  distinct  from  its  critical  side. 

According  to  Laveleye,  even  Bakunin's  Anarchism 
is  traceable  to  Rousseau  conjointly  with  the  German 
philosophers  of  the  present  century,  and  undoubtedly 
the  incoherent  ideal  of  the  anarchist,  so  far  as  it  can 

"  ••  The  Socialism  of  To-day,"  p.  8. 


68  SOCIALISM    NEW   AND  OLD. 

be  gathered,  would  seem  to  be  modelled  on  Rous- 
seau's   picture    of    primitive    man    in    the    state    of 
Nature;  free,  happy,  without  religion,  without  civili- 
zation,   without    laws    or   government,  consequently 
without  national  wars  ;  a  happy  condition  between 
which  and  us  there  is  only  interposed  the  State  and 
its   repressive  authority    to    keep    us    back.     Conse- 
quently this  authority   must    be   attacked,   and  the 
State  overthrown,   and   then    the   happiness    of  the 
state  of  Nature  will  be  once  again  within  our  grasp. 
But  here  there  arises  a  slight  incoherence  or  contra- 
diction of  doctrine.     Bakunin  desires  what  he  calls 
the  "  autonomy  of  the   individual,"  or  as  a  disciple 
expresses  it,  "  that  every  one  should  be  free  to  do  as 
be   pleases ; "   with    no   restraining   laws,    as   in  the 
land  of  Israel,  when  there  was  no   king,  and  "  every 
man  did    that  which   was    right  in   his  own    eyes." 
But  as  he  or  his  disciples  have  also  foreshadowed  the 
"amorphous  commune"  as  the  autonomous  unit  and 
co-operative  labour  in  field  or  factory  as  the  means 
of  life  in  the  restored  state  of  Nature,  it  is  difficult  to 
see  how  every  man  can  be  autonomous,  or  himself 
the  masterful,  uncontrollable  unit,  if  there  is  to  be 
any  social  intercourse,  or  any  organization  of  labour, 
or  at  least  unless  the  large  system  of  production  is 
abolished.     It  is  difficult  to  take  part  in  the  large  pro- 
duction without  some  surrender  of  Freedom,  and  it 
is  perhaps  a  perception  of  this  difficulty  that  makes 
Prince    Krapotkin     advocate    an    extension    of    the 
smaller  industries.^     But  if  we  may  regard  the  Com- 

'  See  art.  Ni7ieteenth  Century  for  October,  1888. 


SOCIALISM   BEFORE   THE    19TH   CENTURV.       69 

mune  as  the  unit  with  co-operative  labour  even  on  a 
small  scale  as  the  goal,  this  would  correspond  as 
nearly  as  circumstances  allow  to  the  stage  at  which 
Rousseau  affirmed  mankind  should  have  arrested 
itself,  the  stage  when  men  lived  in  little  village 
societies^  and  before  they  made  the  fatal  social  con- 
tract which  gave  birth  to  civil  society  ;  the  happy 
savage  state  before  civilization  or  laws,  refined  arts 
or  luxuries  ;  and  if  this  be  the  origin  of  the  anarchists' 
ideas,  it  would  partly  explain  their  hostility  to  civili- 
zation, art,  science,  and  their  glorification  of  "holy 
ignorance."  But,  however  this  be,  the  germs  of  their 
aspirations  and  creed  are  to  be  found  in  Rousseau's 
earlier  writings,  and  probably  were  thence  gathered 
by  Bakunin.  But  that  Rousseau  did  not  think  a 
return  to  the  past  possible,  that  he  did  not  wish  for 
non-government,  but  a  good  government  and  re- 
forms, we  have  just  seen.  The  pity  was  that  neither 
the  reforms  he  desired,  nor  the  best  government  as 
the  means  of  accomplishing  them,  could  be  attained 
without  a  revolution. 

The  Revolution  came  for  which  Rousseau  and 
others  had  prepared  men's  minds.  What  was  the 
Revolution  ?  At  first  a  rising  against  the  privileges 
and  unjust  exemptions  of  the  nobility  and  clergy,  in 
the  sequel  a  rising  against  property,  largely  held 
in  their  hands,  and  an  attempt  to  bring  in  the  reign 
of  cquaHty;  in  short,  a  Socialistic  Revolution,  in  its 
essence,  as  M.  Taine  regards  it,  although  the  word 
did  not  then  exist.  The  course  of  the  revolution 
turned  entirely  on  the  question  of  property.     It  was 


70  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

a  contest  (in  which  the  third  estate  and  the  people  were 
on  one  side)  for  a  new  distribution  of  property  and  of 
political  power  as  a  means  towards  it.  It  has,  in- 
deed, been  asserted  that  it  was  a  Bourgeois  revolution  ; 
that  it  was  made  by  the  Bourgeoisie,  and  that  they 
were  the  sole  gainers.  This  is  partly  true,  partly 
erroneous,  for  the  people  gained  likewise.  They  gained 
the  land ;  at  least  two  millions  were  added  to  the 
peasant  proprietors  that  existed  before  the  Revolu- 
tion, and  all  were  relieved  from  oppressive  feudal 
burdens.  It  is,  however,  true  that  the  rising  middle 
class,  envious  of  the  political  power  as  well  as  the 
exclusive  privileges  and  social  position  of  the  upper 
classes,  were  the  leaders  of  the  assault  on  power 
and  privilege,  and  that  they  finally  overthrew  them, 
■while  ever  afterwards,  even  during  the  strong  rule  of 
Napoleon  and  the  time  of  the  restored  Bourbons,  they 
monopolized  place,  and  to  a  great  extent,  from  the 
fall  of  Napoleon,  political  power.  Nevertheless  the 
people,  as  stated,  gained  very  considerably  by  the 
Revolution.  They  had  been  the  poor  and  suffering 
class,  and  they  gained  the  most  from  the  material 
point  of  view.  They  not  only  gained  the  land,  but 
they  also  gained  the  consciousness  of  their  strength 
which,  as  shown  by  repeated  instances,  they  have  never 
lost  since  the  great  Revolution — a  fact  which  makes 
the  people  a  power  in  France  beyond  what  they  are 
in  any  other  country.  It  is  true  that  since  the 
Revolution  they  have  fallen  into  a  new  subjection  in 
the  great  towns — the  economic  subjection  to  capital, 
— but  the  French  working  classes  have  very  emphati- 
cally shown   that   they  will   not   submit   resignedly 


SOCIALISM   BEFORE  THE    I9TH   CENTURY.       7 1 

to  the  power  of  a  plutocracy,  while  their  countrymen 
in  the  rural  districts  have  shaken  themselves  free  of 
the  feudal  aristocracy. 

The  Revolution  was  forced  to  fight.  The  "  French 
principles  "  were  dangerous,  were  infectious.  It  was 
the  cause  of  the  people  and  partly  of  the  growing 
middle  class  over  Europe  against  the  privileged 
classes.  The  Titan  war  followed  between  the  French 
nation  in  arms  and  the  coalesced  kings  of  Europe. 
When  the  excitement  was  all  over,  when  the  thunders 
of  the  cannon  were  hushed,  it  was  found  in  fact  that  the 
terrible  war  had  been  for  the  most  part  in  vain  ;  that 
all  the  blood  and  treasure  had  been  spent  for  little 
result  from  the  reactionists'  point  of  view  ;  that,  though 
men  may  be  killed,  ideas  are  impenetrable  by  bullets, 
and  that  men  of  the  sword  may  "  as  easily  cleave  the 
intrenchant  air  with  their  keen  blades"  as  principles 
like  those  that  underlay  the  Revolutionary  move- 
ment ;  that  the  Democratic  flood  was,  in  fact,  only 
temporarily  checked,  to  acquire  thereafter  increased 
and  irresistible  volume  and  force. 


72  SOCIALISM  NEW  AND  OLD. 


CHAPTER  IIT. 

MODERN   SOCIALISM  :   FROM    ST.   SIMON   TO   KARL 

MARX 

I. 

The  ferment  of  ideas  and  the  gorgeous  hopes  first 
aroused  by  the  Revolution  ushered  in  a  fresh  era  of 
Social  Utopias,  as  well  as  patent  political  constitu- 
tions. Baboeuf,  in  France,  advocated  pure  Communism 
in  addition  to  liberty  and  perfect  equality,  though 
without  showing  how  liberty  is  reconcilable  with 
Communism.  In  England  also,  Godwin,  in  his 
"Political  Justice,"  impressed  with  the  evils  of  the 
existing  order  which  he  powerfully  denounced, 
declared  for  Communism  as  involving  the  lesser 
evils.  He  makes  somewhat  light  of  the  tremendous 
difficulties  in  the  way,  answers  them  one  by  one 
more  from  the  lofty  point  of  view  of  the  philosopher 
than  of  the  man.  He  is,  however,  logical  and  thorough- 
going, since  with  Plato,  or  going  beyond  him,  he 
does  not  shrink  from,  nor  stop  short  of,  a  community 
of  women  and  children  as  well  as  of  property.  From 
this  work  Shelley  derived  the  like  social  and  political 
faith,  as  shown  in  the  "  Revolt  of  Islam  "  and  others 
of  his  writings.  Other  English  poets,  including 
Coleridge  and  Southey,  were  smitten  with  the  ideal 


MODERN    SOCIALISM.  73 

beauties  of  Communism,  which  they  proposed  to 
realize  in  the  New  World,  away  from  European  pre- 
judices and  obstacles,  in  fact  in  the  land  the  most 
suitable,  in  America,  where  so  many  new  social  ex- 
periments have  since  been  tried. 

These  and  differentother  Utopian  schemes  remained 
ideas  ;  they  became  forgotten  as  time  moved  on,  as  the 
Revolution  seemed  to  have  failed,  as  men  saw  their 
impracticability.  It  was  not  until  the  great  war  was 
over,  and  the  Industrial  Revolution,  which  had  been 
going  on  before  and  during  the  political  and  social 
revolution,  and  during  the  war,  had  nearly  accom- 
plished itself,  that  something  resembling  a  possible 
scheme  of  social  reorganization  was  submitted  by 
St.  Simon,  a  French  noble,  who  accordingly  is  usually 
regarded  as  the  founder  of  modern  Socialism,  though 
even  he  can  hardly  be  said  to  have  reached  the  true 
socialist  position,  or  the  distinctive  doctrines  of 
socialism  until  within  a  few  years  of  his  death. 

Undoubtedly  he  was  a  man  of  genius  and  insight — 
a  bold  and  original  social  thinker  and  reformer, 
some  of  whose  ideas  have  had  permanent  results, 
and  these,  as  well  as  the  successive  phases  of  thought 
which  led  up  more  and  more  clearly  to  his  final  views, 
are  well  worth  considering.  According  to  St.  Simon, 
modern  society  had  long  been  disorganized,  and  it 
was  urgently  necessary  that  it  should  be  organized 
afresh  and  on  wholly  new  principles.  It  should  be 
organized  with  a  view  to  the  needs  of  industry,  which 
will  be  its  future  main  business,  as  it  had  been  organ- 
ized in  the  past  with  a  view  to  the  needs  of  war  as  the 
normal  state.     That  past  was  gone.     The  day  of  the 


74  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND  OLD. 

feudal  noble,  of  the  military  leader,  even  of  the  priest 
in  the  old  sense,  was  gone.  The  day  of  the  industrial 
chief,  of  the  savant,  of  the  man  of  letters,  was  come. 
The  true  aim  henceforth  of  man  in  society,  the  true 
end  of  the  social  union,  was  the  production  of  things 
useful  to  life — "the  exploitation  of  the  globe  by 
association,"  as  he  expressed  it  in  more  general  and 
grandiloquent  terms.  This  being  so,  the  chiefs  of 
production,  the  leaders  of  industry  and  of  science, 
which  on  its  practical  side  is  the  handmaid  of  in- 
dustry, should  be  the  leaders  of  society,  and  should 
also  form  the  Government.  Non-producers,  whether 
nobles,  landed  proprietors,  rentiers,  priests,  so  far  as 
they  taught  erroneous  morality,  should  be  excluded. 
In  "  rOrganisateur "  (1819)  he  gives  a  plan,  half 
practical,  half  Utopian,  for  realizing  this  social  aim. 
He  proposes  three  chambers,  one  of  Invention,  one 
of  Examination,  and  a  third  called  the  Executive 
Chamber.  The  members  of  the  first  and  second  were 
to  consist  of  engineers,  savants,  men  of  letters,  artists  ; 
they  were  to  be  paid  by  the  State,  but  they  were  to 
be  merely  consultative  bodies  :  the  members  of  the 
third  were  to  be  the  great  industrial  leaders,  capitalists, 
and  bankers.  To  these  last  he  gave  the  executive 
power,  and  the  control  of  taxation  and  expenditure ; 
and  by  so  doing,  as  M.  Paul  Janet  says,  he  gave  them 
the  real  temporal  power.  As  in  Comte's  "  System  of 
Positive  Polity,"  the  capitalists — and  particularly  the 
money  capitalists,  the  great  financiers  and  bankers, — 
were  to  rule  ;  though  St.  Simon  wishes  their  func- 
tions reduced  as  much  as  possible  by  submitting  their 
measures  to  the  superior  scientific  light  of  the  other 


MODERN   SOCIALISM.  75 

chambers.  To  the  savants^  supplemented  by  literary 
men  and  artists,  is  virtually  left  the  spiritual  power. 

But  in  the  "  Systeme  Industriel"  (1821)  a  change  is 
made.  The  savants  and  the  men  of  letters  are  dis- 
established. The  spiritual  power  is  withdrawn  from 
them,  and  especially  from  the  savants,  on  the  express 
ground  that  such  power  would  quickly  corrupt  the 
scientific  body ;  that  it  would  appropriate  "  les  vices 
du  clergi ;  il  devieiidrait  metapliysicien,  astiicieux  et 
despote.'^  The  temporal  power  and  the  social  hege- 
mony were  left  with  the  industrial  or  capitalist  class  ; 
and  the  power  withdrawn  from  the  savants  was  to  be 
handed  over  to  positive  philosophers.  The  King 
himself  was  to  bring  in  the  new  system  by  the  Dicta- 
torship— the  favourite  method  in  France  of  cutting 
the  political  Gordian  knot.  To  this  end  St.  Simon 
addressed  himself  to  the  King,  begging  that  he  would 
declare  himself  the  premihr  industriel  of  the  king- 
dom, and  affirm  the  system  by  Royal  Ordinance. 

So  far  one  does  not  find  much  Socialism,  but  a  good 
deal  of  what  is  known  as  Positivism.  We  have 
a  plutocracy  in  power;  the  capitalist  ruling  in 
the  Government,  as  well  as  in  the  sphere  of 
industry ;  the  precise  opposite  of  what  Socialists  of 
to-day  desire.  Apparently  the  antagonism  now  so 
pronounced  between  Capital  and  Labour  had  not 
then  presented  itself  to  St.  Simon's  mind.  On  the 
contrary,  the  capitalist  was  the  general  benefactor, 
and  the  special  patron  and  protector  of  the  proletariate. 

But  soon  we  find  a  new  idea  rising  and  intensifying 
in  St.  Simon's  mind,  an  idea  which  his  school  de- 
veloped  much   faster   than  the  Master.      He    finds, 


76  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

looking  at  the  condition  of  that  "large  and  interesting 
class  "  that  lives  by  manual  labour,  that  it  is  far  from 
satisfactory.  Especially  he  notices  early  that  figure, 
in  which  the  whole  social  problem  presents  itself  in 
epitome,  "  the  able-bodied  man  who  can  get  no  work," 
and  whose  wife  and  family  are  tied  to  the  hazard  of  his 
fate.  He  asks  what  are  the  chief  wants  of  the  large 
labouring  class,  and  he  finds  that  they  are  two  :  he 
wants  constant  work,  and  he  wants  knowledge ; 
labour  to  live  by,  and  the  light  of  science  which  may 
help  his  fortunes.  Both  these  should  be  assured  to 
him.  They  are  his  rights.  The  public  budget  should 
be  employed  to  ameliorate  the  condition  of  the  people, 
and  the  two  primary  heads  of  expenditure  should  be; 
the  first,  for  the  education  of  the  people  ;  the  second, 
for  the  ensuring  of  work  to  those  who  have  no  other 
means  of  existence.  Here,  for  the  first  time,  we  have 
a  distinct  form  of  Socialism  indicated  ;  we  have  a 
form  of  State-Socialism  and  the  Right  to  Labour 
recognized  :  though  whether  a  Government  of 
capitalists  would  be  likely  to  go  far  in  a  direction 
which  might  seem  to  threaten  their  own  profits,  or 
introduce  additional  competition  into  their  special 
fields  of  enterprise,  is  a  question  that  does  not  seem 
to  have  arisen  in  the  philosopher's  mind. 

He  goes  on,  however,  in  his  now  rapidly  increasing 
sympathy  for  the  proletariate,  to  declare  that  the  aim 
of  politics  should  be  "  to  labour  directly  for  the  well- 
being,  moral  and  material,  of  the  working  classes  ;  " 
but  he  now  perceives  that  neither  could  the  new 
society  subsist  nor  those  noble  aims  be  attained  with- 
out a  new  morality.    No  society,  he  affirmed,  was  pos- 


MODERN   SOCIALISM.  "JJ 

sible  without  "  moral  ideas  held  in  common  ; "  but  tlie 
old  morality  was  defective,  and  unsuited  to  the  time. 
A  new  morality,  resting  on  a  new  basis,  was  required  ; 
a  new  doctrine  appropriate  to  the  state  of  know* 
ledge  ;  and  this  new  body  of  doctrine  should  be  sup- 
pliedj  not  as  formerly  by  theologians,  metaphysicians, 
men  of  letters,  publicists,  nor  yet  by  savants,  because 
they  lacked  the  faculty  of  generalization :  but  by 
"  positive  philosophers  "  only,  and  here  again  we  have 
the  essence,  so  oft  repeated,  of  Comte's  "  Philosophic 
Politique." 

But  neither  could  a  society  live  without  religion  : 
still  less  could  it  be  reformed.  He  addressed  a  letter 
to  the  king,  in  which  he  said  that  the  fundamental 
principle  of  Christianity  had  commanded  men  to 
regard  each  other  as  brothers  and  to  co-operate  for 
mutual  happiness  ;  a  principle  which  required  to-day 
a  new  application.  It  was  necessary  that  the  tem- 
poral power  should  appertain  to  "men  useful,  laborious 
and  pacific  ;  and  that  the  spiritual  power  should  be 
assigned  to  men  possessing  the  necessary  knowledge." 
Otherwise  the  principles  of  fraternity  and  mutual  love 
would  be  inapplicable  so  long  as  these  two  powers 
were  in  the  hands  of  warriors  and  theologians  ;  since 
wars  and  theological  dogmas  have  been  the  chief 
causes  of  hate  amongst  men.  He  turns  to  the  philan- 
thropists saying  that  to  make  Christianity  a  practical 
thing  and  a  true  moral  power  there  will  be  previously 
necessary  a  moral  force  to  do  it.  This  new  moral 
force  he  thinks  is  already  distributed  amongst  thcin, 
and  he  calls  on  them  to  be  the  new  evangelists. 
Prcaching,thepowcrof  the  word  through  voice  and  pen. 


78  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

will  be  necessary  to  enforce  the  new  doctrine  on  kingfs, 
capitalists,  and  peoples.  And  the  final  aim  of  all  is 
declared  to  be  to  organize  society  in  the  manner  the 
most  advantageous  for  the  greatest  number  ;  that  is, 
the  working  classes.  In  his  last  work,  the  "  Noveau 
Christianisme "  (1825),  he  gives  us  the  new  moral 
maxim,  the  new  version  of  our  duty  to  our  neighbour 
— the  duty  of  all  classes  above  the  lowest — which  is, 
that  "all  should  labour  for  the  development,  material, 
moral,  and  intellectual,  of  the  class  the  most  nume- 
rous and  the  poorest."  This  is  Christ's  teaching 
adapted  to  the  circumstances  of  our  time.  To  do 
this  is  both  morals  and  religion  in  one.  There  is  no 
special  dogma  or  religious  doctrine  laid  down,  save 
the  belief  in  God,  and  the  implied  belief  that  Christ 
was  specially  commissioned  to  teach  men  the  way 
of  life,  anew  announced  by  St.  Simon. 


II. 

Some  of  these  views  are  remarkable  and  original  ; 
but  they  are  not  very  socialistic.  What  rather  strikes 
us  in  reading  them  in  their  totality  is  their  strong 
resemblance  to  Positivism,  save  only  in  the  last  re- 
ligious phase.  It  is  only  in  the  hands  of  his  School 
that  we  find  certain  of  his  ideas  developed,  perhaps 
logically,  but  probably  to  consequences  the  master 
would  not  have  allowed.  At  all  events,  it  is  amongst 
the  St.  Simonians  that  we  find  what  is  no  more  than 
the  germ  with  St.  Simon  developed  into  the  full-blown 
flower  of  an  all-embracing  State  Socialism. 

According  to  St  Simon,  as  wc  have  just  seen,  the 


MODERN   SOCIALISM.  79 

true  social  aim  is  the  exploitation  of  the  globe  by 
association  ;  according  to  the  school,  this  has  not 
been  the  aim  hitherto.  Rather,  it  has  been  the  ex- 
ploitation of  man  by  his  fellow  man.  In  future  it 
will  be  the  exploitation  of  nature,  the  utilizing  of  her 
resources,  by  "  man  associated  with  man." 

There  have  been  hitherto  three  successive  stages 
in  the  exploitation  of  man  by  his  fellows  :  slavery, 
serfage,  and  the  proletariate,  or  modern  wage  system. 
In  each  successive  stage  the  condition  of  the  labourer 
has  improved,  but  the  essence  of  all  is  the  same,  and 
the  present  system  is  only  a  mitigated  serfage.  In 
appearance,  indeed,  the  worker  is  free  ;  he  is  not 
bound  to  the  soil ;  and  the  contract  with  his  employer 
is  apparently  a  free  one.  In  reality  it  is  not  free. 
There  is  compulsion  brought  to  bear  on  his  will  by 
the  necessity  to  live.  In  result  he  will  only  get  a 
certain  wage,  not  much  above  the  means  of  bare 
existence,  and  he  will  have  to  work  hard  for  it,  while 
he  may  at  any  time  be  thrown  out  of  work  by  indus- 
trial crises  ;  moreover,  his  children's  condition  will  be 
no  better,  if  as  good.  "  For  social  advantages  and 
disadvantages  transmit  themselves  hereditarily : 
misery  is  hereditary."  Property  and  poverty  are 
alike  transmitted  without  reference  to  individual 
merit,  which  is  both  a  moral  and  a  social  evil,  and  the 
source  of  all  other  evils.  To  raise  the  condition  of 
the  proletariate,  to  carry  out  the  words  of  St.  Simon's 
last  testament,  to  ameliorate  the  condition  of  the 
working  classes  is  impossible,  they  say,  without  a 
radical  reform  of  the  institution  of  property  and 
inheritance. 


80  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

The  conception  of  property  and  its  rights,  they  show, 
has  changed  through  the  course  of  history  :  why  may  it 
not  be  so  again  ?  Property  under  the  feudal  regime  was 
not  the  same  as  property  to-day  under  most  civil  laws. 
The  right  of  bequest  had  been  altered  ;  the  right  of 
succession  had  been  interfered  with  and  regulated  by 
law.  Why  might  not  the  like  be  done  again  ?  espe- 
cially if  it  can  be  demonstrated  to  be  necessary  to 
raise  the  condition  of  the  mass  of  the  nation — the 
true  aim  of  both  practical  morality  and  religion. 

They  considered  the  subject  of  rent,  and  found  that 
the  modern  landowner  is  not  entitled  to  receive  it 
while  he  discharges  no  duties.  In  the  middle  ages 
it  was  necessary  to  pay  rent,  or  its  equivalent  in  pro- 
duce,  in  order  that  the  chief  and  his  soldiers  should 
be  subsisted  for  the  military  needs  of  the  time.  Those 
who  fought,  who  defended  the  goods  and  persons  of  all, 
had  to  be  supported  by  those  who  worked.  It  is  not 
so  now  ;  and  the  surplus  produce,  due  to  the  different 
qualities  of  land,  should  not  go  to  the  proprietor, 
but  to  the  nation  as  a  whole.  Only  so  far  as  the  pro- 
prietor is  himself  cultivator  should  he  reap  the 
fruits. 

Coming  to  Capital,  we  find  that  the  St.  Simonians 
had  new  and  original  views  that  never  dawned  upon 
the  Master.  According  to  Enfantin,  capital  in  the  form 
of  instruments  and  means  of  future  labour  does  not 
belong  to,  and  should  not  be  regarded  as  the  property 
of,  the  individual  in  such  a  sense  that  he  could  deal 
with  it  as  he  pleased.  It  belongs  to  the  community, 
which  would  have  to  keep  it  up  in  the  capitalist's 
absence,  under  peril  of  future  penury.     Capitalists 


MODERN   SOCIALISM.  8 1 

are  the  depositaries,  the  stewards,  the  "intendants," 
to  use  the  St.  Simonian  word,  of  this  capital ;  the 
revenue  coming  from  it,  after  paying  wages  and 
materials,  is  at  present  allowed  to  them  as  profits,  and 
very  high  they  are  ;  but  the'  principal,  the  capital 
itself,  is  not  theirs  morally.  It  is  true  the  law  allows 
them  to  regard  it  as  theirs,  to  do  with  as  they  please. 
They  could  consume  it  unproductively;  and  individuals 
often  do.  But  what  proves  the  community's  para- 
mount claim  is  the  consideration  that  if  this  practice 
were  general  the  community  would  be  ruined,  and  it 
would  then  perforce  have  to  withdraw  the  trust  from 
the  present  trustees  and  managers  of  the  fund.  The 
community's  claim  to  the  capital  lies  latent  ;  there 
would  be  no  need  to  assert  it  if  the  capitalists  made  the 
best  use  of  the  national  principal,  if  they  managed  it  at 
the  least  expense,  with  the  greatest  intelligence,  and 
made  its  product  the  greatest ;  and.  lastly,  if  they 
made  an  equitable  partition  between  themselves  and 
their  assistants.  But  do  they  ^  the  St.  Simonians  go 
on  to  ask.  Far  from  it.  That  they  do  not  manage  it 
with  intelligence  is  proved  by  the  frequent  industrial 
crises,  in  which  there  are  violent  and  irrational  trans- 
fers of  capital  and  losses  of  capital ;  the  sudden  ruin 
of  individuals  ;  the  paralysis  of  production  and  trade  ; 
and  from  which  the  working  classes  thrown  out  of 
work  receive  the  most  violent  strokes  of  all.  They  do 
not  adjust  production  to  consumption,  to  the  wants 
of  the  public,  because  they  have  not  sufficient  know- 
ledge. Now  the  Government  could  procure  such 
knowledge,  and  could  adjust  supply  to  demand 
whether     home    or    foreign.       Then    the    existing 


82  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

system  is  one  of  competition  between  producer  and 
producer,  and  between  distributor  and  distributor,  with 
the  result  that  they  frequently  ruin  each  other  ;  their 
avowed  object  being,  as  far  as  possible,  by  a  system 
of  under-selling,  to  ruin  rivals,  without  much  gain  to 
the  public ;  because,  when  they  have  cleared  the  field 
sufficiently,  the  survivors  change  their  tactics,  and  raise 
their  prices  on  the  buyer. 

The  proprietors  of  capital  are  only  depositaries, 
and  "what  is  saved  from  past  labour  ought  not  to  be 
in  the  exclusive  interest  of  individual  enjoyment." 
This,  according  to  M.  Paul  Janet,  is  "le  noeud 
de  la  theqrie," '  and  the  meaning  is  that  savings 
should  either  be  added  to  capital,  which  is  com- 
mon property,  or  be  divided  fairly  for  consumption, 
but  that  in  neither  case  should  they  be  regarded  as 
the  capitalist's  property. 

Closely  connected  with  this  view  of  capital  and  of 
property  is  their  cure  for  the  existing  evils.  It  con- 
sists simply  in  the  abolition  of  hereditary  succession. 
A  son  shall  neither  succeed  to  his  father's  savings  nor 
to  his  father's  function.  All  savings,  at  death,  revert 
to  the  State,  and  become  the  property  of  the  com- 
munity. This  is  a  consequence  of  their  fundamental 
and  famous  principle  of  distribution  :  "  From 
each  according  to  his  capacity ;  to  each  capacity 
according  to  its  works."  This,  they  say,  is  the  only 
principle  of  distribution  that  is  at  once  just  and 
natural  in  the  sphere  of  material  production.  It  is  a 
natural  principle,  and  the  earliest.  If  alone,  a  hunter, 
a  fisher,  a  tiller  of  the  ground,  got  according  to  his 
^  Janet's  "  Saint  Simon  et  le  Saint-Simonisme,"  p.  93. 


MODERN   SOCIALISM.  83 

works  ;  if  working  in  association  he  should  get  so 
likewise,  were  there  any  means  of  discriminating  the 
amount  of  his  contribution  to  the  product,  and  of 
comparing  the  value  of  one  product  with  another,  both 
of  which  can,  however,  be  done  with  sufficient  accuracy 
for  practical  purposes.  It  is  the  only  just  principle 
that  he  should  get  in  proportion  as  he  contributes. 
But  such  a  system  would  give  to  the  man  already 
favoured  by  nature,  an  objector  may  say.  No 
doubt ;  but  that  seems  to  be  Nature's  intention,  too  ; 
at  any  rate,  it  would  work  better  than  the  present 
system,  which  keeps  back  the  man  favoured  by 
Nature,  by  bestowing  the  means  of  life  and  all  else 
accordin":  to  the  chance  of  birth,  from  which  it  follows 
that  capacity  is  kept  back  and  crushed  by  incapacity, 
and  society  loses  much  thereby.  Our  Revolution, 
they  say,  was  the  first  great  assertion  of  this  fact  and 
intention  of  Nature  ;  the  first  great  rising  of  Talent 
against  the  hereditary  usurpation  of  its  seat  at  the 
banquet  of  life,  a  rising  against  Privilege,  an  emphatic 
declaration  that  ability  will  have  its  opportunity,  and 
will  not  suffer  exclusion  in  the  name  of  a  dying  fetish. 
Let  us  all  take  our  places  in  future  according  to  this 
principle,  and  let  promotion  be  by  merit,  measured  in 
the  same  way.  The  hindmost  will  then  have  no  cause 
of  complaint  against  society,  while  his  lot  will  be  much 
mitigated  under  our  system,  as  compared  with  what 
it  is  at  present.' 

St.  Simon,  they  say,  protested  against  "  Ics  oisifs," 
and  justly  ;  he  did  not  point  out  the  cure.     It  lies  here 
— in   the  abolition  of  inheritance.     Destroy  that,  and 
*  "  Saint  Simon  ct  le  Saint-Simonismc,"  p.  90,  et  seq. 


84  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

each  new  generation  collectively  enters  on  its  total 
collective  inheritance,  is  the  successor  to  the  last,  and 
to  all  its  functions  and  offices,  the  rewards  of  which 
shall  be  rated  respectively  at  what  they  are  worth  by 
the  most  expert  valuators  of  the  time.  Each  one  will 
then  get  his  due  place  in  the  grand  army  of  Industry, 
his  fair  portion  of  the  total  of  its  fruits.  His  future 
will  be  according  to  merit,  which  will  be  measured  by 
his  work  and  the  promise  of  further  work. 

By  the  abolition  of  inheritance  the  State  becomes 
the  owner  of  land  and  capital,  the  necessary  instru- 
ments of  production.     The  next  step  is  to  organize 
production  ;  for  which  purpose  it  must  itself  under- 
take    all    industries,    and     thereafter     appoint    the 
hierarchy   of  workers.     What  it  does  in   the  Army, 
the    Universities,    the    Civil     Service,     say    the    St. 
Simonians,  it  can  do  universally.     The  rewards  will 
not  be  equal  ;  they  will  be  in  proportion  to  the  work, 
and  the  grade  of  advancement  in  it ;  but  there  will 
be  no  more  exploitation  of  the  working  classes,  be- 
cause there  will  be  no  more  great  capitals  in  private 
hands.     If  a  well-paid  official  chooses  to  save  he  may 
do  so  ;  but  at  his  death  his  savings  go  back  to  the 
State.     The  individual  \v\l\  thus  have   little  induce- 
ment to  save,  but  also  there  will   be  little  need  for  it, 
as  his  future  and  that  of  his  children  will  be  assured. 
If  any  one  objects  that  the  stimulus  to  labour  will  be 
withdrawn  under  the  system,  the  St.  Simonians  reply 
that  the  hope  of  promotion  will  be  a  sufficient  stimu- 
lus.    But  they  agree  with  the   founder  of  the  Sect, 
that  a  new  religion  and   morality  will  be  necessary 
before  men  can  be  brought  to  see  the  justice  of  their 


MODERN    SOCIALISM.  8$ 

proposals,  Christianity  must  be  interpreted  in  a 
wider  sense,  or  certain  of  its  dogmas  must  be  set 
aside  to  get  this  better  and  more  suitable  religion. 
Industry  and  science  must  be  pronounced  holy  and 
religious.  Men  must  no  longer  be  taught  to  think 
this  life  a  mere  preparation  for  another,  or  that  the 
flesh  is  necessarily  sinful.  The  existence  of  God  is 
declared  to  be  the  first  article  in  the  new  religion, 
but  the  conception  must  be  widened  beyond  the 
narrow  orthodox  one. 

We  thus  see  that  the  St.  Simonians  had  very  ad- 
vanced views  on  property  and  social  re-organization. 
In  fact,  their  ideal,  as  given  above,  is  that  of  the  Collec- 
tivists  of  to-day,  who  have  scarcely  advanced  a  single 
step  beyond  the  sketch  of  the  St.  Simonians.  We 
have  nearly  all  the  ideas  of  the  present  Socialists,  not 
merely  in  vague  and  general,  but  in  definite,  specific 
form  :  that  land  and  capital  should  belong  to  the  State 
in  collectivity  ;  the  three  stages  through  which  the 
labouring  class  has  pa.ssed,  slavery,  serfage,  the  pro- 
letariate ;  the  evils  attending  the  existing  competitive 
regime  ; — the  conimercial  crises,  the  ill  adaptation  of 
production  and  consumption,  the  ruin  of  rivals,  the 
uncertainty  of  work  for  labourers,  and  their  depressed 
wages.  We  have  the  ownership  of  land  and  capital 
by  the  State,  or  what  is  now  called  their  nationaliza- 
tion, advocated,  as  well  as  the  transformation  of  every 
one  into  a  .State  functionary  ;  in  fact,  the  most  com- 
plete possible  State-Socialism.  The  whole  falls  short 
of  the  Socialists'  argument  as  now  presented  by  only 
one  thing — the  economic  and  the  historical  argu- 
ment of  Karl  Marx,  which  tries  to  prove  that  capital 


86  SOCIALISM  NEW  AND  OLD. 

is  a   robbery   of  the  working  classes.     The  St.  Si- 
monians  further,  with  great  insight,  put  their  finger  on 
the  specific  remedy,  other  than  State  organization, 
which  appeared  to  be  both  possible  and  practicable, 
and  which  if  it  could  be  carried  out  would  certainly 
be    efficacious,    and    lead    up   to    a    universal    State- 
Socialism,    namely,    the  curtailment  and  final  aboli- 
tion   of    inheritance.      It    speaks    much    for    their 
perspicacity,  that  they  should  so  long  ago  have  so 
clearly  felt  their  way  into  the  true  line  of  least  resist- 
ance ;  but    still    more   that  they   saw   that  a  moral 
change  was  concurrently  or  antecedently  necessary. 
The  weak   place   in   their  scheme   was  that  they  did 
not    sufficiently    calculate    the   vast   vis   inertice   of 
an    established    system,    nor    allow    for    the    great 
length  of  time   necessary  to  bring  about  social  and 
industrial  changes,  nor  for  the  fact  that  to  a  large 
extent    changes    are    spontaneous    and    independent 
of  governmental  action.     Their  ideal  had   much   in 
it  that  was  good  and  just,  and  much  that  in  time  will 
probably  be  realized.     We  have  been  slowly  moving 
towards    it.      We     are    just    now    moving    faster  ; 
but    even    so,    with    the    normal    rate    of    evolution 
somewhat    hastened    under  a    force    constantly   in- 
creasing, it  will  take  a  very  long  time,  considering 
the  great   forces  of  resistance,  before  society  attains 
the  St.  Simonian  goal,  where  each  one  will  be  placed 
according    to    capacity    and     receive     according    to 
his    works.      There    are    things    in    the    way :    the 
established  system,  in  great  part  complicated,  grow- 
ing according  to  its  own  laws,  and  with  deep  roots  : 
and  there  is  our  unchanged  human  nature,  on  which  it 


MODERN   SOCIALISM,  8/ 

reposes,  and  to  which  it  responds;  while,  in  part  at  least, 
our  moral  sentiments  must  be  improved  before  the 
system  can  be  greatly  changed  for  the  better. 

The  specific  objections  are  obvious  enough.  If 
the  State  controlled  all  industry,  would  the  produce  be 
as  great  as  under  the  present  system  of  private  enter- 
prise, where  profits  go  to  the  private  owner  of  the 
concern  ?  If  all  the  work  was  done  with  the  languid 
energy  shown  by  present  government  functionaries, 
would  it  be  done  so  well  as  now,  and  would  the  nation 
be  poorer  or  richer  ?  If  the  stimulus  now  given  by 
the  gain  and  loss  falling  on  the  undertaker  were  with- 
drawn— a  stimulus  which,  by  appealing  through  his 
self-interest  to  his  energy,  inventiveness,  intelligence, 
makes  him  perform  prodigies — can  there  be  a  doubt 
that  there  would  be  much  less  to  be  divided  amongst 
all,  and  that  the  workers  themselves  would  be  worse 
off?  Then  ivoiild  or  could  each  one  be  placed  ac- 
cording to  merit  in  the  projected  system?  The 
Government  would  have  the  selection  of  the 
different  incumbents  of  offices.  But  does  it  now 
always  appoint  by  merit?  All  would  depend  on 
the  Government  and  its  composition  ;  but  it  would 
presumably  be  composed  of  r  en  like  the  present 
rulers.  Even  admitting  that  it  might  be  better  and 
wiser,  how  is  the  ch.in.c^e  to  be  made,  the  new  Govern- 
ment to  be  installed,  since  no  existing  one  would 
be  likely  to  pass  a  law  for  the  abolition  of  Inherit- 
ance ? 

III. 
In  England,  a  doctrine  substantially  the  same  as  the 


88  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

St.  Simonian  was  preached  by  Carlyle,  a  greater  man 
than  St.  Simon  or  any  of  his  school.  Whether  Carlyle 
was  original  or  not,  we  find  the  leading  ideas  of  St. 
Simon  advocated  in  the"  Sartor  Resartus,"  published 
in  i83i,that  issome  timeaftertheSt.  Simonian  doctrine 
had  been  delivered  to  the  world  ;  and  we  find  special 
reference  to  St.  Simon  and  his  disciples.  We  find  in 
it  that  an  aristocracy  of  talent  is  needed  ;  that  religion 
is  eternally  necessary,  but  that  the  old  religion  was 
dead  ;  that  a  new  spiritual  power  was  arising  ;  and  in 
"Past  and  Present"  (1843),  that  the  new  era  belongs  to 
Labour  ;  that  not  "  Arms  and  the  man,  but  Tools  and 
the  man,"  would  be  the  burden  of  the  human  Epos 
of  the  new  era.^ 

^  Even  the  germs  of  Carlyle's  Hero-worship,  the  eternal  need 
of  it  and  the  eternal  foundation  provided  for  it  in  human  nature, 
may  be  discovered  in  the  "Doctrine  de  St.  Simon  :" — "  Could 
you  believe  that  the  human  race,  after  having  so  long  experienced 
the  respect  which  attracts  the  feeble  to  the  strong,  the  admira- 
tion inspired  in  intelligence  by  genius,  the  love  which  joyfully 
devotes  itself  for  the  man  in  whose  life  the  destinies  of  a  people 
and  of  the  whole  world  seemed  involved;  could  you  believe 
that  mankind  is  for  ever  disinherited  from  these  noble  senti- 
ments?" With  which  compare  Carlyle: — "  Only  in  reverently 
bowing  down  before  the  Higher  does  man  feel  himself  exalted. 
.  .  .  Know  that  there  is  in  man  a  quite  indestructible  reverence 
for  whatsoever  holds  of  Heaven,  or  even  plausibly  counterfeits 
such  holding.  Show  the  dullest  clodpole,  show  the  haughtiest 
featherhead,  that  a  soul  higher  than  himself  is  actually  here  : 
were  his  knees  stiffened  into  brass,  he  must  down  and  worship." 
And,  again  : — "Nature  has  so  cunningly  ordered  it  that  what- 
soever man  ought  to  obey  he  cannot  but  obey.  Before  no 
faintest  revelation  of  the  Godlike  did  he  ever  stand  irreverent  : 
least  of  all  when  the  Godlike  showed  itself  created  in  a  man 
like  himself  Hero-worship  has  always  prevailed,  does  pre- 
vail, and  will  prevail.     "  This  fact  is  the  corner-stone  on  which 


MODERN   SOCIALISM.  89 

In  the  "  Sartor  Resartus,"  which  contains  the  germs 
of  all  his  future  writings,  we  have,  with  much  besides, 
his  opinions  on  Religion,  Life,  and  Society.  With 
St.  Simon,  he  perceives  that  Society  is  dying  ;  that 
the  old  order  is  surely  passing.  But  it  is  the  death 
of  the  Phoenix  which  will  result  in  a  new  and  better 
Society,  and  as  she  dies  she  sings  a  "  melodious  Death- 
song-,  which  ends  not  until  are  heard  the  tones  of  a 
more  melodious  Birthsong."  Nay,  the  death  of  the  Old 
Society  and  the  birth  of  the  New  go  on  concurrently. 
But  the  process  is  slow,  and  it  is  not  a  happy  but  a 
disquieting  age  for  a  man  to  be  born  into.  Perhaps, 
after  two  centuries  of  convulsion  and  conflagration 
the  Death-Birth  process  will  be  finished,  and  man  can 
once  again  find  himself  in  a  true  and  living  society, 
rightly  related  to  his  fellow- man,  and  feeling  himself 
once  again  in  true  relation  to  the  Infinite. 

all  politics  may  stand  firm  to  the  remotest  time"  ("Sartor 
Resartus"').  "It  is  the  final  fixed  point,  the  everlasting^ 
adamant,  lower  than  which  the  confused  wreck  of  revolutionary 
things  cannot  fall,  and  from  which  they  can  begin  to  build 
themselves  up  again  "  ("  Lectures  on  Heroes  "). 

This  is  undoubtedly  the  doctrine  of  the  .St.  Simon'ans,  whose 
"  one  aim  was  to  organize  a  power  loved,  cherished,  and 
venerated  "  (''  Doctrine  de  St.  Simon  "').  But  it  is  preached  by 
Carlyle  with  a  power  and  a  fervour  of  conviction  wholly  unap- 
proached  by  the  .St.  .Simonian  sect.  He  has  given  it  new  argu- 
ments and  illustrated  it  by  historical  examples,  so  as  to  make 
the  doctrine  his  own.  Moreover,  with  Carlyle,  as  with  Comtc, 
the  spiritual  and  temporal  powers  are  separated  ;  for  though  he 
docs  believe  that  the  truly  able  man  is  potentially  able  in  all 
directions,  that  capacity  is  essentially  the  same,  namely  clearness 
of  vision  or  insight — yet  it  takes  two  main  forms,  as  the  hero 
concerns  himself  with  action  or  thought,  with  temporal  things 
or  things  spiritual,  things  eternal,  things  of  the  soul. 


90  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

For  a  true  Society  is  impossible  without  Religion, 
which  is,  as  it  were,  the  inmost  nerve-tissue  which 
ministers  life  to  the  whole  body  politic,  of  whom 
Government  is  but  the  skin  which  protects  and  holds 
all  together,  whilst  the  labourers  by  hand  or  head  are 
but  the  muscular  and  osseous  tissues  lying  under  the 
skin.  Without  Religion  this  same  skin  becomes  a 
shrivelled  pelt ;  Industry  has  only  a  galvanic  life  ; 
and  Society  finally  becomes  a  dead  carcass  deserving 
burial.  Man  is  no  more  social,  but  only  gregarious, 
a  collection  of  discordant  human  atoms  ;  and  the 
return  to  anarchy  and  war  of  all  with  all  would  surely 
follow/ 

Society  is  impossible  without  Religion  ;  but  accord- 
ing to  Carlyle,  as  according  to  St.  Simon,  the  old 
religion  was  dying,  and  the  Church  merely  mumbled 
delirium  prior  to  dissolution.  A  new  priesthood  will 
be  required.  The  "  new  spiritual  power "  that  St. 
Simon  demanded,  that  Comte  finds  amongst  the 
positive  philosophers,  Carlyle  discovers  amongst  men 
of  letters,  in  the  high  and  true  sense  of  the  word;  in 
true  poets,  true  critics  of  life,  men  of  understanding 
who  know  the  meaning  of  life,  thinkers  who  know  the 
meaning  and  spirit  of  the  age  ;  not  in  "  able  editors," 
the  writers  of  fashionable  novels,  or  of  the  modern 
drama.  He  does  not  say  in  the  "  Sartor  Resartus  " 
who  are  to  be  rulers  in  the  industrial  sphere,  but  he 
tells  us  that  only  the  labourer  with  his  hand  and  the 
labourer  for  spiritual  bread  are  honourable  ;  in 
Government  the  truer  ruler  is  the  able  man,  the  born 
hero  whoj  in  fact,  all  men  in  all  ages  are  disposed  to 
♦  "  Sartor  Resartus." 


MODERN    SOCIALISM.  QI 

obey.  This  is  the  ruler  by  divine  right.  And  here 
is  the  adamantine  social  rock,  at  which  revolutionary 
downpulling-  and  destruction  stops.' 

In  the  "  Past  and   Present "  his  ideas  on  the  re- 
organization of  Society  are  more  fully  expressed,  and 
in  particular  on  the  Organization  of  Labour.     Labour 
is  ereat  and  honourable.     It  alone  is.     Let  all  men 
join  in  the  grand  army  of  Labour;  even  the  Aristocrat, 
"he  is  so  much  needed."     Let  him  find  his  place, 
let  all  men    find    their   places  at  their  peril.      The 
future  belongs  to  Labour.      Giant  Labour  will    yet 
be  king.     But  the  Giant  was  "  blind  "  and  stumbled. 
When    he    gets  knowledge  hitherto  denied  him,  he 
will  rise  to  the  intrinsic  dignity  of  his  function.     Car- 
lyle,  however,  is  the  least  of  a  system-maker.      And 
his  system,  though  clear  enough  when  seen  as  a  whole, 
has  to  be  brought  from  his  different  works  and  pieced 
together.     But  he  is  an  extremely  powerful  preacher, 
and  by  his  figures  he  brings  us  to  the  concrete  essence 
of  the  matter,  which  the  abstract  generalizations  of  the 
system-makers  .so  often  hide.     Thus  he  .shows  us  his 
type  of  an  industrial  leader  in  Plugson  of  Undershot — 
"  The  man  with  the  grim  brow,"  who  is  a  natural  leader 
of  operative    weavers    and    spinners.     Plugson    is    a 
good  leader,  the  right  man  in  the  right  place  :  a  man 
to  be  encouraged    by    Government   and    legislators, 
instead  of  permitting  him  to    be  "strangled    in  the 
partridge-nets  of  the   landed   aristocracy."      He  can 
command  a   thousand  hands,  and,  wonderful  thing, 
can  find  wages  to  pay  them  every  Saturday  night, 
if  only  he  gets  fair  play.     In  fact  there  is  great  hope 
•  **  Sartor  Rcsartus.-* 


92  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

of  him  as  Captain  of  Industry ;  he  is  a  man  who 
"sees  the  fact,"  not  a  man  of  fooHsh  words  hke  the 
generahty.  But  there  is  one  sad  defect  which  must 
be  amended.  He  is  a  Mammon  worshipper,  and- a 
materialist,  much  incHned  to  dividing  unfairly  with 
his  workers  the  results  of  their  united  conquest  over 
cotton-fibre.  He  is  a  Mammonist,  and  boasts  of  the 
number  of  scalps  taken  in  the  competitive  business  war. 
He  is — for  in  order  to  emphasize  his  point,  Carlyle 
goes  into  extremes — a  buccaneer  in  search  of  gold, 
and  he  is  given  to  the  morality  of  the  buccaneers.  He 
would  hardly  distinguish  between  foreigners  and  his 
countrymen,  but  would  send  both  alike  to  the  bottom. 
Often  he  is  a  most  unfair  Captain  of  Industry.  He 
takes  the  lion's  share,  dismisses  his  hands  summarily, 
offering  them  "  sixpence  to  drink  his  health."  This 
will  not  do  in  the  future.  The  Industrial  chief  is  too 
well  paid  :  and  there  should  be  permanent  and 
higher  relations  between  him  and  his  nomad  workers, 
instead  of  the  existing  relations  of  cash  payment  for 
hours  of  work,  with  short  contracts  to  be  summarily 
determined  on  either  side.  Society  cannot  go  on 
with  mere  Mammonism  in  the  masters  and  black 
mutiny  and  discontent  in  the  hands  ;  nor  without 
mutual  human  love  and  loyalty. 

The  question  of  the  Organization  of  Labour  con- 
tinually loomed  larger  with  Carlyle  up  to  the  publi- 
cation of  the  "  Past  and  Present,"  after  which  he,  to 
a  great  extent,  avoids  the  question,  contenting  him- 
self with  denunciation  of  the  existing  social  and 
spiritual  order.  Whether  he  had  said  all  he  had  to 
say  in  the  way  of  construction  in  the  books  already 


MODERN   SOCIALISM.  93 

named  together  with  Chartism  (1839),  whether  he 
was  disheartened  at  the  h'ttle  practical  results  that 
followed  his  teaching,  whether  he  began  to  perceive 
more  clearly  that  changes  in  society  must  be  slow, 
certain  it  is  that  after  the  "  Past  and  Present "  he  took 
mainly  to  writing  the  biographies  of  two  of  his  heroes, 
Cromwell  and  Frederick.  No  doubt  he  makes  their 
doings  the  texts  for  preaching  his  old  doctrine,  and 
he  may  have  wished  to  show  how  much  better  the 
heaven-born  ruler  can  deal  with  all  social  questions 
than  shifting  Parliamentary  majorities ;  that  great 
men  can  better  solve  such  questions,  and  are  by  their 
nature  more  inclined  so  to  do.  In  the  "  Latter  Day 
Pamphlets,"  he  does  take  up  a  branch  of  the  Social 
Question,  namely,  what  to  do  with  the  Unemployed, 
and  How  to  treat  the  Criminal  classes,  but  the  general 
question  of  the  Organization  of  Labour  is  no  longer 
treated.  For  the  unemployed  generally  the  Govern- 
ment should  provide  employment,  exacting  work  in 
return,  if  need  be  by  punishment — which  is  a  step 
to  a  rigorous  State-Socialism,  not  easily  to  be'  taken 
in  England,  and  which,  if  taken,  would  necessitate 
further  steps.  The  general  tone  of  the  book,  indeed, 
is  "  flat  despair  "  :  it  is  not  construction  but  destruction 
that  is  chiefly  in  his  mind.  There  is  a  furious  assault 
delivered  all  along  the  line  against  society,  its  chief 
institutions,  and  its  inmost  spirit,  moral  and  religious. 
One  after  another  is  assailed  with  a  fury  of  attack  and 
fervour  of  denunciation  worthy  of  Isaiah  or  Jeremiah. 
The  Pig  Philosophy,  Hudson's  Statue,  Model  Prisons, 
the  Stump  Orator,  are  some  of  the  titles  under  which 
he  savagely  satirizes  our  Utilitarian  Pliilosophy,  our 


94  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

Mammon  Worship,  our  foolish  philanthropy,  and  our 
more  foolish  admiration  for  fluent,  shallow  platform 
speeches  and  Parliamentary  oratory.  Parliamentary 
Government,  Law,  TheChurch  and  its  Overseers,  Lite- 
rature and  its  practitioners,  Political  Economy  and  its 
professors,  all  come  in  for  a  share  of  his  scorn,  and 
each  comes  up  for  a  whipping-.  Never  did  a  society 
receive  such  a  scourging-.  What  he  would  positively 
have  he  is  not  in  a  temper  to  tell  us  fully.  But 
that  he  wishes  much  changed  or  removed  is 
plain  :  above  all  our  Parliamentary  Government. 
And  his  last  thought  appears  to  be  that  nothing  good 
can  be  done  for  our  society  until  a  second  Cromwell 
with  a  troop  of  soldiers  turns  the  Parliament  out  of 
doors,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  As  the  Messiah 
of  Hebrew  prophets  was  always  an  individual 
who  would  rule  with  justice  and  judgment,  soCarlyle 
believed  that  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  virtue  could 
only  be  found  in  the  one,  and  not  in  the  many.  It 
was  the  strong,  single,  unselfish,  enlightened  Will  that 
was  Wanted.  He  did  not  believe  in  the  "  Collective 
Wisdom  "  as  now  gathered  by  foolish  voters,  nor  yet 
much  in  the  collective  conscience  of  the  collective 
wisdom. 

The  one  strong  man  might  effect  much  that  was 
needed  by  capacity  and  courage,  and  his  work  might 
continue  once  it  had  received  the  consecration  ot 
established  law  and  fact.  Like  a  sort  of  earthly 
Deity,  such  a  one  would  be  above  the  selfish  interests 
of  faction,  party  or  class.  He  would  be  the 
moderator  and  supreme  arbitrator  between  contend- 
ing interests.     Above  their  prejudices,  he  alone  could 


MODERN   SOCIALISM.  95 

see  and  do  justice  between  class  and  class,  as  between 
man  and  man.  In  the  absence  of  such  a  one  there  is 
nothing  but  clashing  interests,  becoming  constantly 
more  antagonistic  until  it  must  come,  as  in  France,  to 
a  Revolution  and  a  war  of  classes.  Between  us  and 
anarchy  there  is  but  the  policeman,  a  frail  and  unsure 
defence,  which  mii^ht  at  any  time  give  way. 

The  idea  that  in  the  solution  of  the  great  problem 
of  modern  society  more  may  be  hoped  for  from  the 
powerful  single  ruler  than  from  a  Representative 
body,  with  its  chance  and  shifting  majorities,  which, 
in  consequence,  has  no  single  will  or  connected  prin- 
ciples of  action,  no  continued  policy,  whose  course,  on 
important  occasions,  is  subject  to  unpredictable  acci- 
dents, and  where  the  only  motive  force  that  can  be 
calculated  upon  as  sure  and  steady,  is  class  self- 
interest  tempered  by  fear,  is  significant,  and  may  one 
day  bear  important  consequences,  especially  if  the 
working  classes  should  become  penetrated  by  it.  It 
is  an  old  idea  that,  temporarily  submerged,  has  come 
up  anew  and  is  spreading.  It  was,  as  M.  de  Lavelcyc 
informs  us  in  his  work  on  "  Contemporary  Socialism," 
the  notion  of  Lasr-alle,  who,  although  Republican  in 
principle,  yet  expected  more  for  his  Socialistic  scheme 
from  Prince  Bismarck  and  the  Emperor  than  from 
any  Republican  Chamber  of  Deputies,  even  though 
chosen  by  universal  suffrage.  An  Imperial  Social- 
ism is  always  on  the  list  of  political  possibilities 
in  France ;  and  it  came  near  to  being  a  reality 
under  Napoleon  III  ,  who,  at  one  time,  seriously  con- 
templated it.  In  Germany,  there  is  at  present  a  com- 
petition, a  bidding  for  the  favour  of  the  working-man, 


96  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

between  the  State  Socialism  of  the  great  Chancellor 
and  the  Emperor,  which  aims  at  insuring  the  future 
of  the  working-classes  ;  and  Revolutionary  Socialism, 
that  aims  at  confiscating  land  and  capital ;  and  it  is 
by  no  means  certain  that  the  majority  will  not  close 
with  the  Chancellor's  "bird  in  the  hand." 

In  England,  besides  Carlyle,  one  other  remark- 
able man,  who,  although  he  climbed  to  eminence  by 
means  of  Party,  yet  always  maintained  a  certain 
detachment  from  it,  having  within  himself  the  better 
opinions  of  both  parties,  gave  expression  to  ideas 
favouring  Imperial  Socialism.  This  was  Lord  Bea- 
consfield,  who,  in  his  political  novel  of  "  Sybil,  or 
the  Two  Nations,"  which  deals  essentially  with  the 
Social  Question,  shows  his  sympathies  with  the  work- 
ing classes,  and  with  the  strong  sovereign.  "  Two 
powers,"  he  declares,  "  have  been  extinguished  in 
England,  the  Monarch  and  the  Multitude  ;  "  and  he 
wishes  them  both  restored.  Nay  even,  during  his 
remarkable  career,  more  consistent  throughout  than 
detractors  allow,  he  did  something  in  the  direction  of 
restoring  the  power  of  both,  in  addition  to  widening 
the  Conservative  political  creed.  By  outbidding  the 
Liberals  in  his  Reform  Bill  of  1867,  he  made  Universal 
Suffrage  a  necessity,  by  which,  rightly  used,  the 
multitude  may  once  more  become  a  power ;  and  at 
his  instance  the  Queen  of  England  assumed  the 
style  of  Empress  of  India,  which  may  in  time  imply 
more  than  a  merely  nominal  extension  of  sovereign 
authority.  In  his  novel  of"  Coningsby,"  he  puts  into 
the  mouth  of  one  of  his  characters  his  own  preference 
for  a  strong  monarch  : — "  The  tendency  of  advanced 


MODERN  SOCIALISM.  97 

civilization  is  in  truth  to  pure  monarchy  ....  An 
educated  nation  recoils  from  the  imperfect  vicariate 
of  what  it  calls  a  representative  government."  He 
thinks  that  the  power  of  Parliament,  and  especially 
of  the  House  of  Commons,  will  not  last.     His  ideal 

* 

government  is  "a  free  monarchy,  established  on 
fundamental  laws,  itself  the  apex  of  a  vast  pile  of 
municipal  and  local  government,  ruling  over  an  in- 
telligent and  educated  people,  represented  by  a  free 
and  intellectual  press,"  and  not  by  a  Parliament. 
The  press  would  discuss  and  form  public  opinion 
which,  in  its  active  and  administrative  aspect  should 
be  concentrated  in  "  one  who  has  no  class  interests. 
In  an  enlightened  age,  this  monarch  on  the  throne 
free  from  the  vulgar  prejudices  and  corrupt  interests 
of  the  subjects,  becomes  again  divine."  ..."  Before 
such  royal  authority,  the  sectional  animosities  of  our 
country  would  disappear."  Under  the  system  "quali- 
fication would  not  be  parliamentary,  but  personal," 
and  the  able  and  educated  would  occupy  the  com- 
manding places,  whether  in  the  State,  the  Church, 
Diplomacy,  or  in  the  Military  Service  ;  all  which  put 
together,  are  strongly  suggestive  of  St.  Simonism. 

But  whatever  be  its  actual  future,  the  idea  of  the 
capable  ruler,  seconded  by  the  best  ability  extant,  with 
the  spiritual  power  separated  from  the  temporal,  is  the 
lo"ical  outcome  of  the  St.  Simonian  doctrine.  It  is  that 
to  which  it  essentially  comes  when  reduced  to  cohe- 
rence, as  it  came  with  Carlylc,  if.  we  suppose  him  to 
have  got  his  ideas  from  that  quarter.  It  is  the  only 
form  in  which,  as  well  as  the  only  means  by  which,  it 
could  be  made  a  reality,  as  indeed  St.  Simon  himself 


98  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

must  have  felt  when  he  appealed  to  the  king  to 
take  up  his  project.  Caesar,  seconded  by  capacity, 
was  the  sole  means  by  which  it  could  have  been 
introduced  and  maintained.* 


IV. 

Almost  contemporaneously  with  St.  Simon  another 
Frenchman,  Charles  Fourier,  was  elaborating  a  dif- 
ferent and,  in  the  opinion  of  Mill,  a  more  workable 
scheme  of  social  renovation  on  Socialistic  lines.  The 
work,  indeed,  in  which  Fourier's  main  ideas  are  em- 
bodied, called  the  "  Theorie  des  quatre  Mouve- 
ments,"  was  published  in  1808,  long  before  St.  Simon 
had  given  his  views  to  the  world,  but  it  received  no 
attention  until  after  the  discredit  of  the  St.  Simonian 
scheme  beginning  in  1832. 

Association  is  the  central  word  of  Fourier's  as  of 
St.  Simon's  industrial  system.  Associated  groups  of 
from  1600  to  2000  persons  are  to  cultivate  a  square 
league  of  ground  called  the  Phalange,  or  phalanx ; 
and  are  likewise  to  carry  on  all  other  kinds  of  indus- 
try which  may  be  necessary.  The  individuals  are  to 
live  together  in  one  pile  of  buildings,  called  the 
Phalanstery,  in  order  to  economize  in  buildings, 
in  domestic  arrangements,  cooking,  etc.,  and  to  reduce 
distributors'  profits  ;  they  may  eat  at  a  common  table 
or  not,  as  seems  good  to  them  :  that  is,  they  have  life 

*  Even  Comte,  whose  economical  conclusions  are  different 
from  the  St.  Simonians,  and  who  prefers  a  Republic,  yet  thinks 
that  a  Dictatorship  might  be  temporarily  necessary  to  install  his 
scheme  of  Positive  Polity. 


MODERN   SOCIALISM.  99 

in  common,  and  a  good  deal  in  each  other's  sight ; 
they  do  not  work  in  common  more  than  is  necessary 
under  the  existing  system  ;  and  there  is  not  a  commu- 
nity of  property.  Neither  private  property,  nor  inheri- 
tance, is  abolished.  In  the  division  of  the  produce  of 
industry,  after  a  minimum  sufficient  for  bare  sub- 
sistence has  been  assigned  to  each  one,  the  surplus, 
deducting  the  capital  necessary  for  future  opera- 
tions, is  to  be  divided  amongst  the  three  great 
interests  of  Labour,  Capital,  and  Talent,  in  the  respec- 
tive proportions  of  five-twelfths,  four-twelfths,  and 
three-twelfths.  Individuals,  according  to  their  several 
tastes  or  aptitudes,  may  attach  themselves  to  more 
than  one  of  the  numerous  groups  of  labourers  within 
each  association.  Every  one  must  work ;  useless 
things  will  not  be  produced  ;  parasitic  or  unnecessary 
work,  such  as  the  work  of  agents,  distributors,  middle- 
men generally,  will  not  exist  in  the  phalanstery  ; 
from  all  which  the  Fourierist  argues  that  no  one  need 
work  excessively.  Nor  need  the  work  be  disagree- 
able. On  the  conrary,  Fourier  has  discovered  the 
secret  of  making  labour  attractive.  Few  kinds  of 
labour  are  intrinsically  disagreeable  ;  and  if  any  is  un- 
pleasant, it  is  mostly  because  it  is  monotonous  or  too 
long  continued.  On  Fourier's  plan  the  monotony  will 
vanish,  and  none  need  work  to  excess.  Even  work 
regarded  as  intrinsically  repugnant  ceases  to  be  so 
when  it  is  not  regarded  as  dishonourable,  or  when  it 
absolutely  must  be  done.  But  should  it  be  thought 
otherwise,  there  is  one  way  of  compensating  such 
work  in  the  phalanstery — let  those  who  perform  it  be 
paid  higher  than  other  workers,  and  let  them  vary  it 


100  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

with  work  more  agreeable,  as  they  will  have  oppor- 
tunity of  doing  in  the  new  community. 

In  Fourier's  scheme,  it  may  be  noted,  there  is  no 
place  allowed  for  domestic  servants  ;  there  will  be  no 
need  for  private  cook,  kitchen-maid,  parlour-maid,  in 
the'  phalanstery.  The  services  now  rendered  by  such 
will  be  rendered  for  the  good  of  all,  and  each  will 
have  to  contribute  his  or  her  special  service  in  return 
in  the  new  life.  The  present  man-servant  and  maid- 
servant, the  groom,  valet,  maid,  and  maid-of-all-work 
can  be  dispensed  with  ;  you  can  brush  your  own  coat, 
groom  your  own  horse  (if  you  are  fortunate  enough 
to  have  one),  nay,  you  can  brush  your  own  boots,  and 
your  wife  and  daughter  (if  such  relations  exist  in  the 
community)  will  be  all  the  better  and  happier,  in 
Fourier's  opinion,  if  they  have  a  little  scrubbing 
and  washing  to  do  ;  it  will  be  good  for  the  ner- 
vous system,  and  will  exorcise  ennui  and  hysteria. 
Certainly,  whosoever  joined  the  community  would  have 
to  give  up  a  good  deal,  if  not  also  wife  and  children 
and  lands,  for  the  gospel's  sake.  But  as  full  return 
they  were  assured  by  Fourier  of  happiness. 

And  this  raises  the  interesting  and  important  ques- 
tion of  the  Family  and  the  relations  of  the  sexes  in 
the  model  community.  Some  laws  must  be  laid 
down  on  this  cardinal  point,  some  principles  must  be 
acted  upon.  What  were  they  ?  Apparently,  with 
Fourier,  the  fewer  rules  the  better.  It  is  a  fundamental 
principle  with  him  that  the  misery  and  discord  of  the 
social  world  come  from  checking  and  thwarting 
natural  passions  and  impulses.  Nature  intended 
them  all  to  be  gratified.     They  shall  in  the  phalan- 


MODERN   SOCIALISM.  10 1 

stery,  have  free  play  under  the  "  Law  of  Passionate 
Attraction,"  which  he  claims  to  have  discovered — ■ 

"  There  the  passions,  cramped  no  longer,  shall  have  scope  and 
breathing  space," 

and  the  results  will  be  something  the  world  has  not  yet 
seen,  for  certainly  the  tendency  of  these  doctrines  is 
not  in  the  direction  of  "  One  man  One  wife,"  or  the  in- 
dissolubility of  the  marriage  bond.  On  the  contrary, 
its  tendency,  as  the  philosopher  knew,  and  probably 
desired,  is  in  the  direction  of  free  love  and  the  com- 
munity of  wives,  as  is  likewise  the  life  in  common 
and  the  absence  of  separate  households.  But  who- 
ever goes  thus  far,  should  go  one  step  further,  and 
abolish  inheritance  and  private  property.  There 
would  then  be  thorouc^h-going  and  consistent  Com- 
munism, and  it  would  at  least  be  an  interesting 
social  experiment  to  see  how  it  would  work. 

According  to  Mill,  "  whatever  may  be  the  merits 
or  defects  of  these  various  schemes,  they  cannot  truly 
be  said  to  be  impracticable.  No  reasonable  person 
can  doubt  that  a  village  community  composed  of  a  kw 
thousand  inhabitants,  cultivating  in  joint  membership 
the  same  extent  of  land  which  at  present  feeds  that 
number  of  people,  and  producing  by  combined  labour 
and  the  most  improved  processes  the  manufactured 
articles  which  they  required,  would  raise  an  amount 
of  production  sufficient  to  maintain  them  in  com- 
fort." And  of  the  several  forms  of  Socialism  to  which 
he  refers,  he  thinks  Fourierism  the  most  practicable, 
"the  most  skilfully  combined,  and  with  the  greatest 
foresight  of  objections." 


102  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

Now  when  Mill  affirms  that  Fourier's  scheme  is 
not  impracticable,  he  is  only  contemplating  it  from 
the  economical  point  of  view,  because  from  the  social 
and  moral  and  general  standpoint  it  is  demonstrably 
impracticable ;  and  to  prove  it  practicable  in  one 
aspect,  while  other  aspects  equally  essential  are  not 
considered,  is  nothing  to  the  purpose. 

But  now  let  us  consider  it  from  the  politico- 
economic  point  of  view.  There  is  no  doubt,  as  Mill 
says,  that  Fourier's  community,  if  it  had  the  necessary 
land  and  capital  to  start  with,  would  be  able  to 
support  itself,  and  probably  in  comfort.  It  would  be 
self-supporting  and  self-sufficient,  like  the  Indian 
village  community  of  past  times.  It  would  support  all 
its  members,  and  there  would  be  no  paupers  or  lack- 
alls.  And  if  all  France  were  organized  industrially 
on  the  same  model,  there  would  be  the  same  general 
level  of  comfort  throughout.  There  would  be  a  stan- 
dard of  comfort,  not  high,  but  respectable,  attained 
by  all.  The  problem  of  poverty  would  be  solved,  and 
there  would  be  a  pretty  general  equality  likewise. 

But  there  is  a  great  quantity  of  human  labour 
required  under  Fourier's  scheme  to  realize  this  not 
very  high  result.  With  2000  persons,  the  large  system 
of  production  which  so  greatly  increases  the  pro- 
duce in  proportion  to  the  labour,  would  not  be 
possible,  and  there  would  in  consequence  be  a  great 
economic  loss.  It  would  take  half  of  Fourier's 
phalanstery  to  work  a  modern  cotton  or  silk  factory  ; 
and  that  half  could  probably  make  what  could  be 
exchanged  for  a  greater  sum  of  produce  than  the 
whole  would  turn  out  if  employed  partly  in  agricul- 


MODERN   SOCIALISM.  IC3 

ture,  and  the  rest  in  twenty  or  fifty  petty  handicrafts 
as  contemplated  by  Fourier.  There  would  simply 
be  a  great  waste  of  labour.  The  present  system  pro- 
duces as  great  result  with  half  the  labour,  and  the 
capital  need  not  be  more  to  begin  with.  Fourier's 
project  was  conceived  with  reference  to  a  system  of 
industry  that  was  rapidly  disappearing  when  he  wrote, 
and  which  is  now  almost  entirely  superseded  in 
the  spheres  of  manufacturing  production,  and  largely 
in  the  distributing  and  carrying  businesses.  The 
scheme  was  more  plausible  when  first  put  forth  ;  but 
when  Mill  wrote,  the  industrial  revolution  was  all  but 
complete. 

I  do  not  say  that  there  might  not  be  exceptional 
cases  in  which  the  idea  of  Fourier  might  yet  be  tried  ; 
but  merely  that  it  could  not  be  made  general  as 
Fourier  intended  it  to  be.  Now  Mill  in  his  criticism 
must  also  have  regarded  it  from  the  pointof  viewof  its 
universal  applicability  ;  since  he  is  avowedly  consider- 
ing both  Fourier's  and  the  St.  Simonian  scheme  as 
possible  substitutes  for  the  existing  order  ?  He  should 
therefore  have  estimated  the  economic  results  of  both  ; 
since  in  a  treatise  on  Political  Economy  that  is  the 
first  consideration,  and  all  his  own  arguments  as  to  the 
advantages  of  the  large  scale  of  production  in  facili- 
tating division  of  labour,  allowing  for  large  labour- 
saving  machinery,  etc.,  can  be  employed  to  prove 
that  a  nation  covered  with  phalansteries  or  village 
communities  would  be  a  poor  nation,  even  allowing 
for  some  economic  gain  by  the  life  in  common.  It 
would  be  poor  in  results,  or  for  any  purpose  beyond 
the  provision  of  acoarse  material  comfort  universalized. 


104  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

Now  the  present  system  gives  us,  if  not  quite  this, 
amongst  the  lower  classes,  yet  something  near  to  it, 
while  in  addition  it  is  able  to  tell  off  a  large  number 
for  immaterial  labour,  art,  science,  letters,  philosophy, 
and  very  many  more  to  *'  do  nothing  gracefully,"  if 
it  so  pleases  them  :  the  last  not  altogether  a  good 
result,  but  with  possibilities  of  good  contained  in  it, 
and  the  worst  of  the  evils  curable  at  less  cost  than  a 
universal  life  in  the  phalanstery  would  involve. 

Mill  further  desired  that  the  different  schemes  of 
St.  Simon  and  Fourier  should  have  an  opportunity 
of  trial.  To  this  it  may  be  said  that  at  least  Fourier's 
system  has  had  opportunities  of  trial,  and  it  has  inva- 
riably failed.  Though  even  if  it  had  had  a  partial  suc- 
cess, this  would  not  have  been  a  conclusive  argument 
against  the  much  stronger  and  demonstrative  eco- 
nomic argument.  Fourierism  has  been  tried  more 
than  once  on  the  Continent.  It  was  also  tried  in 
America  in  a  celebrated  experiment,  of  which 
Nathaniel  Hawthorne  speaks  in  the  "  Blythdale 
Romance,"  in  which  reasons  other  than  economical 
are  shown  against  it.  Even  if  it  had  not  rashly  in- 
novated with  regard  to  the  family,  it  was  bound  to 
fail.  Economically,  perhaps,  it  might  have  been 
partly  possible  in  1808,  when  Fourier  first  wrote, 
before  the  large  production  had  extended  itself, 
though  even  then  the  millions  of  scattered  small 
farmers  and  proprietors  would  with  difficulty  have 
been  induced  to  give  up  their  homesteads  and  their 
family  life  for  the  barrack-life,  and  no  privacy  of  the 
phalanstery. 

There  is  perhaps  one  case  where  the  phalanstery  or 


MODERN   SOCIALISM.  10$ 

village  community,  its  nearest  realized  type,  might  still 
be  possible,  without  involving  much  permanent  loss. 
It  might  prove  a  refuge  for  the  unemployed  (not  likely 
to  be  again  employed),  for  the  temporarily  un- 
employed, composed  of  agricultural  labourers  and 
artisans,  and  for  those  only  casually  employed,  pro- 
vided, that  is,  that  they  would  be  willing  to  go  to  it 
voluntarily.  But  one  can  see  that  these  are  not  pro- 
mising materials  for  our  village  community  ;  it  would 
not  be  an  ideal  one  by  any  means.  Even  including 
agricultural  labourers  and  such  artisans  as  might  be 
willing  to  take  their  fortune  for  a  period  in  it  (who 
would  not  be  of  the  best  kind),  it  would  not  be  very 
successful  economically.  Still  they  might,  under 
certain  conditions,  make  a  living  in  these  villages  of 
refuge,  spare  the  public  rates,  and  save  to  some 
extent  their  own  dignity.  And  something  resem- 
bling the  above,  though  not  modelled  on  the  phalan- 
stery of  Fourier,  seems  to  have  been  the  village 
contemplated  and  recently  described  by  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Mills  as  a  refuge  for  the  unemployed,  as  well  as 
for  the  recipient  of  out-door  relief  and  the  casual 
labourer.^ 

There  is,  however,  this  further  to  be  said  :  that  if  a 
self-contained,  self-sustaining  villagecommunity  would 
be  good,  one  that  did  not  produce  all  it  needed,  but 
bought  from  the  outside  and  gave  its  best  products 
in  exchange  might  be  better  ;  from  whence  it  would 
follow  that  it  mi^ht  be  better  to  have  an  association 
mostly  of  agricultural  labourers,  or  a  mainly  agricultu- 

7  For  a  fuller  consideration  of  Mr.  Mills'  scheme,  see 
Chapter  XI. 


I06  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

ral  village  with  good  farming  machinery  ;  the  clothes 
and  some  other  necessaries  being  bought  where 
cheapest.  It  could  give  some  employment,  no 
doubt,  to  inferior  artisans,  as  shoemakers  and  car- 
penters, and  the  like.  To  this  extent,  perhaps,  the 
village  community  might  be  restored,  but  it  would 
always  be  in  a  state  of  unstable  equilibrium,  unless 
the  new  recruits  were  enlisted  for  at  least  a  twelve- 
month without  the  power  of  leaving  it.  This,  no  doubt, 
would  be  a  sorry  ending  for  the  phalanstery,  which 
was  announced  with  confident  gravity  by  the  founder 
as  the  one  means,  without  doubt,  of  making  labour 
attractive,  mankind  happy,  and  of  introducing  once 
again  the  Golden  Age.  To  come  to  a  sort  of  semi- 
pauper,  semi-penal  village  community  without  the 
Fourierist  Palace  in  the  centre,  would  be  a  lowering 
of  the  phalansterian  flag.  Or  if  the  palace  be  in- 
sisted on,  we  shall  have  a  building,  half  barrack,  half 
workhouse,  in  which  the  resemblance  to  the  latter 
would  be  only  too  painfully  marked. 


The  phalanstery  shocked  and  went  to  pieces  on  the 
large  system  of  production,  with  which  it  is  incom- 
patible. Universalized,  it  would  impoverish  a  nation, 
besides  being  otherwise  impracticable.  On  the  other 
hand,  St.  Simonism  would  destroy  individual  liberty, 
would  weight  the  State  with  endless  responsibilities, 
and  the  whole  details  of  production,  distribution,  and 
transportation.  It  would  besides  be  a  despotism  if  it 
could  be  carried  out,  and  not  a  beneficent  despotism, 


MODERN   SOCIALISM.  I07 

considering  the  weakness  and  imperfection  of  men. 
So  objected  Louis  Blanc  to  St.  Simonism,  in  his 
"  Organisation  du  Travail "  ( 1 840) ,  whilst  bringing  for- 
ward a  scheme  of  his  own,  which,  he  contends,  would 
be  at  once  simple,  immediately  applicable,  and  of  in- 
definite extensibility  ;  in  fact  a  full  and  final  solution 
of  the  Social  Problem. 

The  large  system  of  production,  the  large  factory 
and  workshop,  he  saw  was  necessary.  Large  capital, 
too,  was  necessary,  but  the  large  capitalist  was  not. 
On  the  contrary,  capitalism — capital  in  the  hands  of 
private  individuals,  with,  as  a  necessary  consequence, 
unbounded  competition,  was  ruinous  for  the  working 
classes,  and  not  good  for  the  middle  classes,  including 
the  capitalists  themselves,  because  the  larger  capi- 
talists, if  sufficiently  astute  or  unscrupulous,  can 
destroy  the  smaller  ones  by  under-selling,  as  in  fact 
they  constantly  did.  His  own  scheme  was  what  is 
now  called  co-operative  production,  with  the  difference 
that  instead  of  voluntary  effort,  he  looked  to  the 
State  to  give  it  its  first  motion,  by  advancing  the 
capital  without  interest,  by  drawing  up  the  necessary 
regulations,  and  by  naming  the  hierarchy  of  workers 
for  one  year,  after  which  the  co-operative  groups  were 
to  elect  their  own  officers.  He  thought  that  if  a 
number  of  these  co-operative  associations  were  thus 
launched  State-aided  in  each  of  the  greater  provinces 
of  industry,  they  could  compete  successfully  with  the 
private  capitalist,  and  would  beat  him  within  no  very 
long  time.  By  competition  he  trusted  to  drive  him 
out  in  a  moderate  time,  and  without  shock  to  industry 
in  general.     But  having  conquered  the  capitalist  by 


I08  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

competition,  he  wished  competition  to  cease  between 
the  different  associations  in  any  given  industry  ;  as 
he  expressed  it,  he  would  "avail  himself  of  the  arm 
of  competition  to  destroy  competition." 

The  Government,  being  the  founder  of  the  "  social 
workshops,"  would  draw  up  the  statutes  which,  de- 
liberated on  and  voted  by  the  national  representation, 
would  have  the  form  and  power  of  law.  The  Govern- 
ment having  regulated  the  hierarchy  of  functions  for 
the  first  year,  thereafter  when  the  labourers  had 
learned  each  other's  powers  from  daily  contact,  and 
being  deeply  interested  in  having  the  best  superiors, 
"the  hierarchy  would  issue  from  the  elective  principle." 

The  net  proceeds  each  year  would  be  divided  into 
three  parts  :  the  first  to  be  divided  equally  amongst 
the  members  of  the  association  ;  the  second  to  be 
devoted  partly  to  the  support  of  the  old,  the  sick,  the 
infirm,  partly  to  the  alleviation  of  crises  which  would 
weigh  on  other  industries  ;  the  third  to  furnish  "  in- 
struments of  labour"  to  those  who  might  wish  to  join 
the  association,  so  as  to  allow  of  an  indefinite  exten- 
sion of  the  principle. 

Each  association  might  also  have  affiliated  to  it 
groups  ofsubordinate  workers  in  connected  industries, 
forming  different  parts  of  one  whole,  obeying  the 
same  laws,  and  deriving  the  same  advantages. 

Every  member  might  spend  his  salary  as  and 
where  he  pleased  ;  but  the  "  evident  economy  and 
incontestable  excellence  of  the  life  in  common 
would  give  birth  to  voluntary  association  for  wants 
and  pleasures,"  and  thus  the  better  part  of  Fourier's 
scheme  would  be  realized. 


MODERN   SOCIALISM.  I09 

Capitalists  would  be  invited  into  the  associations, 
and  would  receive  the  current  rate  of  interest  at  least, 
which  interest  would  be  guaranteed  to  them  out  of  the 
national  budget  ;  but  they  would  only  participate  in 
the  net  surplus  in  the  character  of  workers. 

The  struggle  with  private  capital  would  not  be 
long,  he  thinks  ;  because  all  the  co-operators  would 
have  the  economic  advantages  of  the  life  in  common, 
and  a  great  stimulus  to  produce  quickly  and  well. 
Nor  would  the  struggle  be  subversive  ;  because  the 
State  would  be  always  present  to  mitigate  the 
effects  of  it,  and  could  prevent  the  products  of  the 
social  workshop  from  being  offered  too  cheaply.  The 
co-operators  would  not  act  like  the  strong  competitor 
under  the  existing  regime,  who  sells  at  half  the  price  of 
his  competitors,  "to  ruin  them,  and  remain  master  of 
the  field  of  battle."  The  Government  would  not  be 
a  party  to  such  tactics  ;  and  thus  the  final  industrial 
war  between  the  associations  and  private  enterprise 
would  be  shorn  of  its  most  disastrous  feature  for  the 
conquered.  There  would  be  no  sudden  ruin  for  the 
private  capitalists  ;  they  would  merely  be  slowly  but 
surely  defeated  ;  and  they  would  soon  come  to  recog- 
nize the  fact.  There  would  be  for  the  first  time  "  a 
healthy  competition."  At  present,  when  the  great 
capitalist  declares  war  on  the  little  capitalist,  it  is 
generally  accompanied  by  "  fraud^violence,  and  all  the 
evils  that  iniquity  carries  in  its  train  ;  "  but  the  war 
between  association  and  capitalism  would  be  carried 
out  "without  brutality,  without  shocks,  and  with  as  much 
clemency  as  would  con^^ist  with  attaining  the  desired 
end,  namely,  the  absorption,  successive  and  pacific,  of 


no  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

individual  workshops  by  social   workshops.'      He  is 
sanguine  that  wherever  a  co-operative  factory  or  work- 
shop would  be  established,  labourers  and  capitalists 
alike  would  go  and  purchase  from  it.     At  the  end  of 
a  certain  time  the  associations  would  infallibly  remain 
masters  of  the  field.     The  State,  through  the  associa- 
tions,  would    render   itself  supreme  little  by   little, 
and    as    final  result  there  would   be  the  defeat  and 
extinction     of    competition,      not     monopoly,     but 
universal   association.     The   best   part    of   the  ideal 
of  the    St.  Simonians  would  be  realized  without  a 
State  despotism  ;    because  after    the    first  year  the 
role  of  the  Government  would  be  limited  to  super- 
intending the  maintenance  of  the  connection  of  all  the 
grand  centres  of  production  of  the  same  sort,  and 
to  preventing  the  violation   of  the  general  principle 
of  the  common  regulations.     After  the  defeat  of  the 
private  capitalist  all  associations  in  the  same  field  of 
production  would  merge  competition  amongst  them- 
selves ;  because  it  would  be  absurd,  having  killed  com- 
petition   between    individuals,    to  permit  it  amongst 
the  associations.^      On  the  contrary,  in  each  sphere 
of  industry  there  would  be  a  large  central  association 
with  which  all  the  others  would  be  in  connection   as 
subordinate   branches  ;  just  as  M.   Rothschild  has  a 
principal  seat  for  his  banking  operations,  which  is  in 
connection  with  less  extensive  branch  concerns. 

The  mechanism,  M.  Blanc  argues,  is  simple  in  the 
extrem.e.  Simpler  than  the  postal  system,  which  yet 
worked  so  well.     There  are  divisions  and  subdivisions 

3  "  Organisation  du  Travail,"  p.  125. 


MODERN   SOCIALISM.  I  1 1 

in  the  postal  service,  but  one  common  mechanism 
and  one  aim.  There  is  no  competition,  as  there  might 
have  been  had  it  been  left  to  private  enterprise.  It 
cannot  be  impossible  for  the  labourers  in  a  given 
industry  to  act  "avec  ensemble  "  for  a  common  end 
in  a  country  where  one  man  for  twenty  years  moved 
simultaneously  a  million  of  men  animated  by  his 
sinijlewill.  If  the  forces  of  destruction  could  be  thus 
organized,  so  surely  may  yet  be  the  forces  of  pro- 
duction. 

Thus  there  would  be  established  the  solidarity  of 
interest  of  the  workers  in  one  industry,  whether  weav- 
ing, mining,  iron-founding,  or  any  other.  It  would 
then  be  necessary  to  establish  a  solidarity  of  interests 
amongst  the  workers  in  all  spheres.  The  State  would 
aid,  from  the  overplus  in  one  industry,  others  that 
might  be  depressed.  Crises  would  become  rarer, 
because  they  are  products  of  the  present  cruel  system. 
They  would  no  longer  arise  from  internal  causes — 
causes  generated  at  home  by  competition — they 
could  come  only  from  external  causes,  which  treaties 
of  peace  and  alliance  would  largely  counteract,  if 
only  for  the  present  bad  scheme  of  foreign  politics  and 
mischievous  diplomacy  with  its  false  aims  there  were 
substituted  a  true  system  founded  on  the  necessities  of 
industry  and  the  reciprocal  conveniences  of  the  labour- 
ing classes  in  all  parts  of  the  world  ;  a  system  which, 
as  an  international  understanding  in  the  interests  of 
labour,  will  be  the  foreign  policy  of  the  future. 

Finally,  if  the  State  does  not  resolutely  take  up  the 
question  of  the  reorganization  of  industry  on  these 
lines,  the  existing  industrial  anarchy  will  go  on  ;  but 


112  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

the  existing  social,  order  cannot  last  ;  it  is  giving 
way  on  all  sides.  The  whole  social  edifice  is 
cracking  in  all  directions  ;  and  it  will  fall  one  day  in 
terrible  ruin  on  all  of  us,  if  the  evil  signalized  is  not 
dealt  with  in  time  by  the  State. 

Such  was  the  scheme  of  Louis  Blanc,  which,  in 
1848,  when  member  of  the  Provisional  Government  in 
France,  he  had  the  opportunity,  rarely  granted  to  the 
social  system-maker,  of  partially  trying  in  practice. 
He  was  allowed  to  establish  a  number  of  associations 
of  working  men  by  the  aid  of  Government  subsidies.'-* 
The  result  did  not  realize  expectations.  After  a 
longer  or  shorter  period  of  struggling,  every  one  of 
the  associations  failed  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  a 
number  of  co-operative  associations  founded  by  the 
workmen's  own  capital,  as  also  some  industrial  part- 
nerships founded  by  capitalists,  on  Louis  Blanc's 
principle  of  distribution  of  the  net  proceeds,  were  suc- 
cessful. M.  de  Laveleye  argues  that  the  cause  of  the 
failure  of  Louis  Blanc's  associations  was  simply  the 
State  assistance,  which  paralyzed  or  prevented  the 
formation  of  the  qualities  absolutely  essential  to  per- 
manent success,  namely,  energy,  foresight,  the  spirit 
and  habit  of  saving — qualities  implied  in  self-reliance, 
but  which  reliance  on   the  State,  or  on  any  outside 

^  I  do  not  refer  to  the  ateliers  nationaux,  which  were  not 
countenanced  by  Louis  Blanc  ;  but  to  certain  associations  of 
working  men  who  received  advances  from  the  Government  on 
the  principle  advocated  in  his  book.  There  were  not  many 
of  these  at  first.  L.  Blanc  congratulated  himself  on  bein^tr 
able  to  start  a  few :  after  the  second  rising  the  Government 
subsidized  fifty-six  associations,  all  but  one  of  which  had  failed 
by  1875.     See  Laveleye's  "  Socialism  of  To-day,"  p.  ^t,. 


MODERN   SOCIALISM.  II3 

support,  invariably  weakens.  And  Professor  Cairnes 
appears  to  be  of  the  same  opinion  as  to  the  tendency 
of  State  Help,  as  compared  with  self-reliance.  If, 
he  argues,  men  can  get  capital  provided  by  the  State 
as  often  as  needed,  why  should  they  save,  why  work 
hard,  or  take  pains  to  turn  out  good  work  ?  The  very 
springs  of  economy,  of  effort,  and  of  excellence  are 
stopped,  and  in  the  opinion  of  all  the  enemies  of 
State  help,  there  would  be  a  competition,  taking  men 
as  they  are,  not  to  do  most  and  best,  but  least  and 
worst,  which  would  be  nationally  disastrous,  unless 
the  nations  competing  with  us  adopted  the  same 
suicidal  system. 

Without,  for  the  present,  further  examining  the 
soundness  of  this  view,  we  have  merely  here  to  note 
that  the  social  workshops  in  Paris  aided  by  the  State 
all  failed  by  degrees,  as  did,  likewise,  the  co-operative 
efforts  in  England,  started  and  patronized,  and  partly 
propped  up,  by  philanthropic  endeavours.  But  what 
is  more  remarkable,  and  what  requires  a  different 
explanation,  is  the  fact  that  the  self-reliant  attempts 
at  co-operative  production  made  at  Rochdale  as  well 
as  other  places,  even  when  started  by  the  workers 
savings,  have  likewise  generally  failed. 

The  system  of  Fourier  failed  because  it  was  un- 
suited  to  our  modern  minute  division  of  labour,  the 
cmplo)'mcnt  of  extensive  machinery,  and  large  pro- 
duction ;  because  economically  it  was  weak,  and 
morally  it  ran  counter  to  the  instincts  of  human  nature. 
The  Phalanstery,  like  the  dying  Village  Community  or 
the  House  Communities  of  the  Slavs,  was  retrograde. 
The  St.  Simonian  system  cannot  be  said   to    have 


114  SOCIALISM    NEW   AND   OLD. 

failed,  because  it  has  never  been  really  tried,  nor  could  it 
easily  be,  considering  its  vastness  and  all-comprehen- 
siveness.^ Its  weakness  as  a  scheme  is  that  it  could 
not  be  tried  on  a  small  scale,  nor  at  all,  without  putting 
all  to  hazard.  It  is  an  ideal  that  might  be  slowly 
approximated  to,  but  as  a  scheme  it  could  only  be  fully 
tried  by  a  despot  or  a  dictator,  like  Napoleon.  We  can 
readily  believe  that,  had  it  been  tried  by  such  an  one, 
it  would  have  failed,  for  the  opposite  reason  to  that 
which  necessitated  the  failure  of  Fourier's  scheme, 
namely,  because  it  was  premature.  Fourier's  scheme 
failed,  St.  Simon's  scheme  remained  an  ideal.^ 
Louis  Blanc's  scheme,  a  sort  of  middle  between 
the  two,  so  far  as  tried,  failed,  and  we  can  see 
reasons  for  its  failure.  But  for  voluntary  co-operative 
production,  the  most  carefully  guarded  against  ob- 
jections, which  seemed  to  comply  with  all  economic 
conditions,  which  had  passed,  so  to  speak,  all  the 
economic  doctors — Mill,  Calrnes,Fawcett,  Thornton — 
we  should  surely  have  expected  a  priori  z.  better  fortune. 
What  has  been  the  cause  of  its  failure  ? — for  failure  it 
is,  since,  as  regards  this  social  question,  not  to  advance, 
or  to  advance  so  slowly  after  so  long,  is  to  fail.  Before 
attempting  to  answer  this  question,  it  will  be  well  to 
consider  briefly  the  opinions,  economic  and  social,  of 
John    Stuart   Mill,    the   principal    advocate   of  Co- 

1  It  is,  in  fact,  the  St.  Simonian  scheme  without  the  rulers, 
temporal  and  spiritual— without  the  aristocracy  of  capacity,  and 
with  the  election  of  officers  from  beneath  by  vote,  and  not 
from  above,  that  the  existing  Socialists  wish  to  see  attempted. 

2  Except  so  far  as  Bonapartism  was  a  partial  application  of 
it. 


MODERN   SOCIALISM.  II5 

operative  Production  in  England,  and  a  man  who,  by 
his  sincerity,  his  wide  sympathies,  his  love  of  justice, 
as  well  as  by  his  powers  as  a  writer,  his  clearness  of 
thought  and  of  exposition,  his  wide  knowledge,  and 
common  sense,  has  done  much  to  advance  the  cause 
of  Democracy,  as  well  as  to  prepare  the  soil  for  the 
reception  of  Socialistic  ideas. 


VI. 

In  his  "Principles  of  Political  Economy  "  (1848),  Mill 
discusses  Communism  and  Socialism,  as  they  then 
presented  themselves  to  him,  in  a  broadly  catholic 
and  impartial  spirit.  Whether  Socialism  or  private 
property,  reformed  and  purified,  will  hold  the  future 
depends,  he  thinks,  on  which  of  the  two  affords  the 
largest  space  to  individual  liberty,  which,  next  to 
meat  and  drink,  is  the  greatest  need  of  man,  and 
which,  unlike  the  others,  tends  to  increase.  At  the 
same  time,  the  present  system  reposing  on  private 
property  will  last  a  very  considerable  time,  and,  if  it 
were  only  freed  from  its  worst  features,  would  have 
much  on  its  side.  He  shows  us  the  kind  of  reforms 
that  he  desires,  and  it  is  significant  to  note  that  they 
mostly  tend  in  a  Socialistic  direction,  viz.  legislation 
to  promote  greater  equality  of  fortune,  limitation  of 
the  rights  of  private  property  and  of  inheritance,  the 
abolition  of  certain  kinds  of  property.  In  1848,  the 
date  of  the  publication  of  his  book,  a  due  mixture  of 
the  two  systems  of  Socialism  and  Individualism  was 
his  ideal,  and  one  both  philosophical  and  practical. 
In  18G9,  the  year  of  the   Congress  of  Bale,  when 


Il5  SOCIALISM    NEW   AND   OLD. 

Socialism,  having  been  prosecuted  in  Germany,  had 
again  become  miHtant,  and  had  submitted  an  ad- 
vanced programme  recommending  the  nationaHzation 
of  land  and  capital,  Mill  once  more  returned  to  the 
question  of  Socialism  as  the  most  important  one  of 
the  future.  He  even  contemplated  writing  a  book 
upon  the  subject,  which,  unfortunately,  he  did  not 
live  to  finish.  Happily,  though  without  all  his  argu- 
ments, we  are  able  to  gather  his  main  conclusions, 
which,  however,  might  have  been  qualified  if  he  had 
lived  to  complete  the  work.  There  is  not  a  great  ad- 
vance in  his  theoretical  opinions.  The  Socialists'  in- 
dictment he  thinks  grave  and  terrible,  if  true.  Though 
it  contains  much  truth,  it  is  exaggerated.  Competi- 
tion is  not  an  unmixed  evil,  as  the  Socialists  picture  it. 
It  does,  however,  lead  to  some  evils.  In  other  respects 
it  works  altogether  for  good,  and  gives  workers  high 
wages,  just  as  it  sometimes  does  low  wages.  The 
notion  of  property  must  be  altered  in  the  Socialist's 
direction.  All  through  history  the  notion  has  been 
subject  to  change.  The  capitalist  is  not  a  confiscator. 
He  gets  his  profits  on  his  capital,  only  on  condition 
that  the  circulating  part  of  it  is  given  to  the  workers. 
He  never  touches  the  circulating  part,  save  to  give  it 
to  them  {Fortnightly  Review,  1874). 

It  cannot  be  said  that  we  have  here  any  great  doc- 
trinal change  on  the  whole.  His  merit  is  that  he  tries 
to  hold  the  scales  impartially  between  Capital  and 
Labour  ;  and  as  he  was  an  undoubted  friend  of  the 
working  classes,  as  well  as  a  scientific  seeker  for  the 
true  and  good,  his  words  will  be  likely  to  have  weight 
with  all  classes. 


MODERN   SOCIALISM.  II7 

In  his  "  Autobiography "  he  says  that  the  views 
which  he  and  his  wife  had  come  to  share  would  entitle 
them  to  be  classed  "  under  the  general  designation  of 
Socialists."  And  this,  though  not  quite  a  death-bed 
confession  of  faith,  yet,  as  it  was  written  late  in  life, 
and  intended  for  the  world  after  his  death,  must  be 
taken  to  express  his  final  opinion.  He  there  says : 
'*  While  we  repudiated  with  the  greatest  energy  the 
tyranny  of  society  over  the  individual,  which  most 
Socialistic  systems  are  supposed  to  involve,  we  yet 
looked  forward  to  a  time  when  society  would  no  longer 
be  divided  into  the  idle  and  the  industrious  ;  when 
the  rule  that  they  who  do  not  work  shall  not  eat  will 
be  applied  not  to  paupers  only,  but  impartially  to  all ; 
when  the  division  of  the  produce  of  labour,  instead  of 
depending  in  so  great  a  degree,  as  it  now  does,  on  the 
accident  of  birth,  will  be  by  concert  on  an  acknow- 
ledged principle  of  justice  ;  and  when  it  will  no  longer 
either  be,  or  be  thought  to  be,  impossible  for  human 
beings  to  exert  themselves  strenuously  in  procuring 
benefits  which  are  not  to  be  exclusively  their  own, 
but  to  be  shared  with  the  society  they  belong  to." 
Professor  Cairnes,  indeed,  thinks  that  these  views 
would  not  entitle  him  to  call  himself  a  Socialist,  be- 
cause he  docs  not  advocate  "  the  employment  of  the 
powers  of  the  State  for  the  instant  accomplishment 
of  ideal  schemes,  which  is  the  invariable  attribute  of 
all  projects  generally  regarded  as  Socialistic."  Now, 
as  matter  of  fact,  I  believe  that  few  Socialists  at  present 
do  look  for  "  the  instant  accomplishment  of  ideal 
schemes"  by  the  aid  of  the  State;  certainly  even 
Louis  Blanc  did  not  expect  that  his  scheme  would 


Il8  SOCIALISM  NEW  AND  OLD. 

be  instantaneously  accomplished,  while  Lassalle,  who 
also  appealed  to  the  State,  did  not  expect  that  the 
desired  Social  transformation  could  take  place  inside 
two  centuries.  However,  not  to  press  the  word  "  in- 
stant," and  letting  "  Socialism "  stand  for  the  more 
or  less  gradual  accomplishment  of  ideal  schemes  by 
State  aid,  which  is  what  it  generally  does  signify, 
Mill  certainly  was  a  Socialist,  even  before  writing  the 
"  Autobiography."  In  two  remarkable  paragraphs  in 
different  places  in  his  work  on  Political  Economy  he 
gives  us  his  ideal :  '  the  chief  feature  in  which  is  the 
limitation  of  inherited  fortunes  to  a  moderate  com- 
petence. He  sketches  the  leading  features  of  Society 
under  his  ideal,  which  he  thinks  would  form  a  great 
improvement  on  the  present  system.  He  does  not 
think  that  this  better  state  could  be  realized  at  once, 
or  until  mankind  were  morally  improved.  But  he 
regards  it  as  an  ideal  to  be  striven  for,  and  one  that 
can  be  brought  about  in  the  main  only  by  the  State. 
And  as  steps  towards  it,  practicable  even  at  the  time, 
he  recommends  an  increase  in  the  land  tax,  the 
reversion  to  the  State  of  future  unearned  increments 
in  the  value  of  land,  and  an  increase  in  the  taxes  on 
inheritances  and  legacies.  So  that  Mill  must  be  re- 
garded as  having  been  then  a  Socialist,  and  a  State 
Socialist.  Only  he  is  a  Socialist  that  expects  his 
ideal  to  be  realized  slowly — that  is,  he  is  a  practical 
and  sensible  Socialist,  and  neither  Utopian  nor 
revolutionary. 

As  regards  industry,  his  ideal  is  Co-operative  Pro- 

3  "  Political  Economy,"  pp,  139,  140  (People's  Edition),  also 
pp,  454,  487. 


MODERN   SOCIALISM.  II9 

duction — the  same  as  that  of  Louis  Blanc,  with 
this  difference,  that  he  does  not  in  this  case  look 
for  the  help  of  the  State,  and  probably  because, 
as  he  says,  those  associations  that  relied  on  the 
State  were  less  prosperous  than  those  that  relied 
on  themselves,  on  their  own  savings,  and  the 
small  loans  of  sympathizing  fellow-workmen.  Like 
Louis  Blanc,  he  expected  much  from  the  prin- 
ciple of  associated  labour  ;  and  he  prophesied  that 
the  relation  of  employer  and  employed  would  be 
gradually  superseded  by  partnerships  in  one  of 
two  forms :  the  first  in  which  the  workers  will 
share  profits  with  the  master ;  the  second  in 
which  the  workers  will  all  be  partners,  the 
master  being  replaced  by  an  elected  manager.  The 
first  is  profit-sharing.  It  is  the  second  form,  or 
Co-operative  Production  proper,  that  must  be  ex- 
pected to  prevail  in  the  end  ;  and  he  thinks  that 
time  nearer  than  people  in  general  imagine.  Pri- 
vate capitalists,  as  many  as  remain,  will  gradually 
make  all  their  workers  sharers  in  profits.  And  so 
with  the  associations  of  labourers  ;  for  it  would  never 
do  for  themselves  to  employ  hired  labourers  while 
trying  to  break  down  the  principle  of  hired  labour. 
He  thinks  with  Louis  Blanc  that  these  associations 
would  tend  more  and  more  to  absorb  all  workpeople, 
except  those  who  have  too  little  understanding,  or 
too  little  virtue,  to  be  capable  of  learning  to  act  on 
any  system  other  than  that  of  narrow  selfishness.  The 
capitalists,  thus  finding  only  bad  workmen  left  with 
them,  would  soon  begin  to  think  of  giving  up  a  hope- 
less struggle  ;    they  would   lend  their  capital  to  the 


120  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

associations ;  but  they  would  have  to  do  this  at  a 
diminishing  rate  of  interest,  and  at  last  accepting  the 
inevitable  with  the  best  grace,  they  would  "  most 
probably  exchange  their  capital  for  terminable  annui- 
ties/' Thus  slowly  and  quietly  by  euthanasia  would 
pass  away  capitalism  and  the  once  mighty  capitalist, 
and  co-operative  production  would  reign  supreme  in 
the  industrial  world. 

Such  was  Mill's  prophecy  in  1848.  It  was  a  san- 
guine time.  Louis  Blanc,  as  we  have  seen,  expected 
the  like  issue  in  the  competition  between  the  private 
capitalists  and  the  co-operative  groups.  So  also  did 
Charles  Kingsley,  another  determined  enemy  of 
capitalism  and  the  "  Manchester  School."  So  also 
did  Thomas  Hughes  and  Mr.  Holyoake,  two  veteran 
co-operators,  whose  faith  has  hardly  yet  failed 
them,  and  who  in  1887  celebrated  the  Jubilee  of  co- 
operation. 

But  the  prophets,  including  Mill,  were  reckoning 
without  their  host,  the  capitalist.  They  knew 
neither  the  vast  strength  and  resources  of  the  pri- 
vate capitalist,  nor  the  capacity  of  development  in 
capitalism,  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  did  they  know  the 
latent  weakness  of  co-operation.  With  a  light  heart 
Mill  proposes  the  removal  of  the  capitalist,  the  key- 
stone of  the  whole  system  of  modern  industry,  which,  if 
there  is  anything  in  the  science  of  society  and  the 
doctrine  of  social  evolution,  is  about  as  possible  in  our 
time  as  it  would  have  been  possible  in  the  days  of  Feu- 
dalism to  dispense  suddenly  with  all  the  feudal  chiefs. 
What  has  been  happening  ever  since,  the  really  re- 
markable evolution  sin  ze  1 848,  has  been  quite  a  di fferent 


MODERN   SOCIALISM.  121 

thing  ;  not  the  extension  of  co-operative  associations 
and  the  simultaneous  extinction  of  the  capitalist,  but 
the  extension  of  limited  companies,  composed  of 
many  small  capitalists,  and  the  transformation  of 
large  private  concerns  into  limited  companies,  in  which 
the  large  capitalist  sits  secure  at  the  centre,  holding 
the  greatest  portion  of  the  shares.  In  fact,  the 
capitalist  has  strengthened  his  position  and  consoli- 
dated his  empire  by  having  so  many  smaller  allies 
and  defenders.  Companies  new,  and  ever  more  com- 
panies, occupy  the  field  of  industry  and  of  enterprise. 
The  associations  for  co-operative  production  have 
not  extended  relatively.  They  have  hardly  even 
increased  in  absolute  numbers  within  the  past  forty 
years ;  but  have  rather  declined,  at  present  there 
being  only  a  few  instances  in  England  of  successful 
effort  of  the  kind  ;  though  in  France  and  Germany 
there  arc  a  large,  though  not  a  relatively  large, 
number. 

The  capitalist,  a  strong  and  self-reliant  man,  was 
laughing  inwardly,  whilst  the  prophets  and  economic 
doctors  were  composedly  compassing  his  death.  None 
knew  better  than  he  how  little  there  was  in  co-opera- 
tion and  how  little  threatening  it  really  was  to  him. 
He  knew  well  that  unless  the  associations  had  great 
money  resources,  he  could  at  any  moment  starve  their 
profits  by  underselling.  He  kept  his  counsel.  He 
rather  encouraged  the  co-operative  delusion.  It  sent 
the  friends  of  the  working-class  on  a  wrong  road, 
where  their  meddling  was  of  much  less  concern  to 
him.  It  left  him  alone  for  a  time,  and  it  served  to 
let   off  sentimental    steam,    which    might   otherwise 


122  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

have  got  Parliamentary  Commissions  of  inquiry 
into  his  practices.  Whilst  the  friends  of  co-operation 
preached  self-help  to  the  workers,  he  knew  he  was 
safe,  that  he  had  a  long  respite.  "With  their  pitiful 
resources  we  can  at  any  moment  blow  them  out  of 
the  waters,  if  there  is  ever  any  necessity  for  it, 
which  there  will  not  be  so  long  as  they  depend  on 
themselves  for  capital.  Let  us  leave  them  alone ; 
waste  no  effort  or  talk  on  them.  The  inherent  weak- 
ness of  the  idea  will  cause  its  failure,  and  then  we 
shall  hear  no  mr.re  of  it.  Even  if  it  drags  on  a 
protracted  and  puny  life,  it  will  serve  us  rather 
than  otherwise.  It  will  keep  back  proposals  more 
seriously  touching  our  position.  It  will  occupy  the 
philanthropists  and  some  of  the  social  projectors  ; 
meantime  we  shall  be  left  alone,  and  we  can  strengthen 
our  weak  places." 

So  ran  the  tenor  of  the  capitalist's  reflections,  and 

■  on  the  whole  he  was  right.  As  matter  of  fact, 
while  co-operation  did  not  make  way,  capitalism 
enormously  extended  itself.  New  forms  of  rich  men 
appeared.  In  addition  to  the  earlier  rich  types,  the 
manufacturer,  the  great  brewer,  the  banker,  the  coal- 
master,  the  iron-master,  the  great  contractor,  there 
came  new  ones,  producing,  distributing,  financing. 
The  skilful  "  cornerer  "  and  operator  appeared.  New 
hands  of  monopoly  were  placed  on  things  necessary 
or  in  excessive  demand.  New  forms  of  monopoly — 
rings,  pools,  syndicates,  and  trusts — with  developed 
artifices  and  methods,  appeared.  The  financier  ex- 
panded his  province  and  branched  out  into  new  types, 
especially  in  America,  where  he  had  a  golden  chance  in 


MODERN   SOCIALISM.  123 

the  extension  of  railway  and  other  large  enterprises 
requiring  much  borrowed  capital.  Speculation  ex- 
tended, and  was  reduced  to  a  fixed  science  by  the 
speculator.  The  Company  "  limited  "  became  univer- 
salized, and  the  company- floater  found  his  chance 
whether  the  company  succeeded  or  failed.  The 
manager  of  the  successful  companies  flourished, 
as  did  the  directors.  New  and  well-paid  parasites 
on  the  fruits  of  industry,  and  new  middle-men 
found  a  place  for  themselves,  though  smaller  ones 
were  extinguished  by  the  growth  of  the  large 
system. 

All  the  interests  of  the  different  kinds  of  capitalists 
were  solidaire,{?ir  more  so  than  those  of  the  landowners 
in  their  day  of  power.  They  controlled  the  Parlia- 
ment largely  ;  the  press  largely  ;  the  loanable  circu- 
lating medium  of  the  country  and  of  the  world 
largely.  Whatever  is  a  power  in  modern  times 
they  controlled.  This,  then,  was  the  mighty  interest 
threatened  by  Mill's  scheme  of  co-operation, — for 
with  the  downfall  of  the  great  producing  capitalist 
most  of  the  other  sorts  would  have  been  involved 
with  him.  And  there  is  no  doubt  from  the  words 
of  Mill  and  Louis  Blanc  that  they  were  intended 
to  be  dethroned.  Thus  an  enormous  and  ex- 
ceedingly powerful  interest  would  be  dislodged, 
and  in  fact  a  social  and  industrial  system  sub- 
verted, by,  the  success  of  co-operation,  a  thing, 
as  all  history  teaches,  not  easy  to  effect;  and 
this  alone  would  almost  account  for  the  slow 
progress  of  co-operation,  were  there  not  also 
wanting     certain    moral    qualities    to    be    adverted 


124  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

to   hereafter,  without   which  success   would   be   im- 
possible/ 

Note. — In  the  preceding  historical  review  it  may  appear  that 
less  than  justice  has  been  done  to  our  own  countryman,  Robert 
Owen,  who  has  been  sometimes  described  as  "  the  founder  of 
English  Socialism,"  as  well  as  the  initiator  of  the  co-operative 
movement.  The  truth  is  he  is  not  entitled  to  either  name. 
Owen  was  a  communist,  whose  scheme,  though  bearing  some 
resemblance  to  Fourier's,  yet  differs  essentially  from  it  in  pro- 
posing the  rule  of  equality  in  distribution  and  the  abolition  of 
private  property ;  that  is  to  say,  it  differs  in  being  still  more 
impracticable.  Neither  can  Owen  be  rightly  regarded  as  the 
founder  of  co-operative  production,  though  it  is  possible  that  his 
failure  to  found  a  successful  community  in  America  may,  by 
narrowing  the  field  of  experiment,  have  prepared  the  way  for 
the  more  special  attempt  of  co-operative  production,  and  that 
his  great  and  disinterested  efforts  to  introduce  Communism 
may  have  prepared  the  minds  of  the  English  people  for  the 
milder  Socialist  movement  of  1848.  The  chief  result  of 
Owen's  life,  apart  from  the  high  example  set  of  philanthropic 
endeavour,  was,  in  fact,  a  negative  one :  not  the  founding  of 
Socialism,  but  the  demonstration  once  again,  and  by  actual 
experiment,  of  the  impracticability  of  communism. 

*  For  the  reason  given  I  cannot  agree  with  Professor 
Cairnes  ("  Leading  Principles  of  Political  Economy  ")  that  the 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  co-operation  are  chiefly  moral.  Still 
less  do  I  agree  that  co-operative  production  of  the  voluntary 
kind  is  the  sole  outlook  for  the  working  classes,  the  assertion 
of  a  single  exclusive  specific  being  now  rather  regarded  as 
savouring  of  the  social  empiric.  I  think,  too,  that  the  moral 
difficulties  are  greater  than  he  supposed  ;  and,  moreover,  would 
require  so  long  a  time  to  overcome,  that  successful  co-operative 
production  would  come  too  late,  so  many  other  possible  de- 
velopments having  taken  place  meantime  in  the  industrial 
sphere. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  NEW   SOCIALISM   AND   ITS   ARGUMENT. 

I. 

After  the  memorable  year  of  1848  it  seemed  as  if 
Socialism  were  dead,  and  the  middle  classes  in  France, 
for  whom  it  had  seemed  a  menace,  rejoiced.  It 
had  shown  itself  dangerous  and  subversive  in  its 
forms,  and  so  far  as  actually  tried  in  peaceful 
fashion,  according  to  the  scheme  of  Louis  Blanc,  it 
had  not  succeeded,  but  failed.  In  England,  too,  the 
various  attempts  made  at  co-operative  production 
had  failed.  Socialism  became  discredited.  Soon 
people  ceased  to  speak  of  it,  save  as  a  thing  of  the  past, 
as  a  strange  and  eccentric  rising  against  the  natural 
course  of  things.  The  several  systems  of  St.  Simon, 
Fourier,  Louis  Blanc,  were  relegated  to  the  philoso- 
phical museum  for  abortive  social  systems,  or  those 
merely  fanciful,  like  Plato's  "  Republic  "  and  More's 
"  Utopia."  Socialism,  it  was  thought,  was  dead,  and 
the  old  society  breathed  freely  once  more. 

Its  peace  v/as  of  short  duration.  In  18  32  the 
spectre  of  Socialism  again  appeared.  Nay,  it  seemed 
living,  breathing,  endowed  with  a  larger  life  and 
greater  vitality  than  ever.     A  new  Socialist  crusade 


126  SOCIALISM    NEW   AND   OLD. 

was  preached,  and  this  time  it  was  Germany,  as 
before  it  had  been  France  that  had  the  honour  of 
leading  it. 

The  third  crusade  was  preached  by  Lassalle,  but  the 
inspiration  came  from  Karl  Marx,  both  of  that  Jewish 
race  which  from  the  time  of  Moses  and  the  Prophets 
had  shown  strong  Socialistic  tendencies  as  well  as 
others  as  strongly  individualistic.  Marx,  the  founder 
of  the  new  Socialism,  had  no  new  social  S3^5tem  ;  he 
brought  merely  a  new  argument  into  the  controversy.^ 
He  undertook  to  prove  that  the  capitalist  was  a  spoiler 
and  a  robber,  though  not  to  blame  for  it,  because  he 
was  only  a  part  of  a  necessary  social  evolution,  in 
which  he  found  himself,  without  consciously  con- 
tributing to  make  it.  He  was  merely  born  part  of  a 
bad  social  system.  According  to  Marx,  we  can  do 
little  to  mend  it.  Society  must  slowly  go  through 
its  successive  stages  :  all  that  can  be  done  by  philoso- 
phers or  statesmen  is  to  abridge  a  little  the  process, 
and  to  facilitate  the  incoming  of  the  next  and  better 
stage  :  to  "  lessen  the  birth  pangs."  It  is  a  matter  of 
evolution,  and  revolutions  in  the  old  violent  sense 
are  of  little  use,  save  that  they  may  come  in  as 
necessary  and  useful  crises  in  the  course  of  evolution. 
But  it  is  not  they,  but  the  total  evolution  that  really 
effects  the  social  transformation. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  important  to  have  clear  and  true 
knowledge  in  order  to  make  the  right  and  necessary 
course    clear,    in    order   to  facilitate    the    new  birth. 

1  Even  his  argument  is  not  altogether  original,  being  largely 
based  on  ideas  of  Rodbertus;  which,  however,  are  more  fully 
developed  and  illustrated  by  Marx. 


THE   NEW    SOCIALISM   AND   ITS  ARGUMENT.     12/ 

Whatever  be  the  fatality  in  the  course  of  evolution, 
it  is  well  that  they  who  wish  the  change  should  have 
morality  and  right  on  their  side.  And  to  prove  that 
they  have  Marx  has  written  a  History  of  Capital  in 
its  past  stages  of  growth  ;  and  he  submits  capitalism, 
as  at  present  existing,  to  a  long  and  laboured  criticism, 
and  as  the  result  of  the  history  and  the  criticism,  he 
thinks  he  has  clearly  shown  that  capital  is  the  result  of 
confiscation  from  the  working  classes.  For  hitherto 
this  had  been  rather  assumed  by  the  St.  Simonians 
and  by  Louis  Blanc  and  Proudhon  than  attempted 
to  be  proved.  In  order  to  prove  it  Marx  goes  on  the 
right  and  only  method.  He  goes  to  history  and 
economic  science,  which  had  been  neglected  by 
preceding  Socialists  ;  and  in  his  theory  of  value  he 
adroitly  turns  their  own  guns  against  the  orthodox 
economists  and  capitalists.  He  accepts  the  doctrine 
of  Adam  Smith  and  especially  of  Ricardo,  that  labour 
is  the  sole  source  of  value,  and  undertakes  to  show 
from  it  that  capital  must  be  the  result  of  spoliation. 

Now,  if  Marx  could  establish  his  theory  that 
capital  is  robbery,  he  would  have  contributed  a  power- 
ful argument  in  favour  of  Socialism.  For  men,  so 
long  as  they  even  pretend  to  be  moral  beings,  and  to 
have  any  regard  for  justice,  could  not  go  on  acquiescing 
in  a  system  thus  shown  to  run  counter  to  their 
current  ideas  of  morality  and  the  precepts  of  all 
religions.  Marx  would  have  created  a  powerful 
diversion  against  the  existing  capitalist  system.  He 
would  have  effected  a  fatal  breach  in  the  fortress  of 
capitalism  ;  and  it  would  be  only  a  question  of  time 
when  it  would  collapse ;  for, as  Professor  Sidgwick  says, 


128  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

"  The  conclusions  of  economic  science  have  alvvaj^s 
been  supposed  to  relate  ultimately — however  qualified 
and  supplemented — to  actual  human  beings.and  actual 
human  beings  will  not  permanently  acquiesce  in  a 
social  order  that  common  moral  opinion  condemns."  ^ 
Moreover,  if  men  are  Christians  as  well  as  moral 
beings,  and  really  believe  what  they  profess,  they 
could  not  acquiesce  in  a  system  of  organized  plunder 
and  oppression  for  their  profit ;  nor  could  we  suppose 
their  spiritual  guides  would  acquiesce  in  it.  If,  then, 
the  existing  system  were  condemned  by  morality,  and 
religion  threw  in  her  weight  against  it  as  well,  the 
system  would  be  doomed.  The  battle  of  Socialism — 
if  Socialism  were  practicable — would  be  won.  It 
is  for  these  reasons  that  Marx's  indictment  against 
capitalism  and  his  argument  to  prove  capital  the 
result  of  spoliation  are  deserving  of  serious  and 
careful  examination. 

I  have  said  that  Marx  had  no  peculiar  system,  but 
only  an  argument.  The  truth  is  that  he  set  out  from 
the  communism  of  Louis  Blanc.  In  1 847  he  published, 
in  conjunction  with  F.  Engels,  a  manifesto  of  the  Ger- 
man communists,^  in  which  is  advocated  the  abolition 
of  private  property,  the  establishment  of  a  single 
centralized  State  bank,  associations  of  agricultural 
labourers,  together  with  the  carrying  on  of  all  in- 
dustry other  than  agricultural  in  national  factories, 
which  is  simply  the  scheme  of  Louis  Blanc. 

The  manifesto  affirms  that  the  ideal  could  only  be 

8  Sldgwick's   "Principles   of  Political    Economy,"    2nd   Ed. 

p.  501. 

3  Laveleye's  "Socialism  of  To-day,"  p.  148. 


THE   NEW   SOCIALISM   AND   ITS   ARGUMENT.      1 29 

attained  by  a  violent  revolution,  and  it  adds,  "  that 
the  transformation  of  society  would    not  take  place 
according  to  the  preconceived  ideas  of  any  reformer, 
but  on  the  initiation  of  the  entire  labouring  classes  " 
— whatever  the  last  vague  clause  may  mean,  which  is 
both    mysterious    and    partly    contradictory    to    the 
preceding,   because   the   "  preconceived    ideas   of  re- 
formers," and  in  particular  those  of  himself  and  of 
Louis  Blanc,  are  laid  down  as  at  least  general  goals. 
In    1864    Karl    Marx    founded    the    International 
Society,    intended    as    a    sort    of  universal    Trades' 
Union,  aiming  at  first,  as  M.  de  Laveleye  says,  at 
"  raising  wages  ;  but  later  on,  when  the  influence  of 
Marx  was  overridden,  at  a  transformation  of  society, 
if  needs  were,  by  revolution."     The  first  manifesto  of 
the  International,  conceived  by  Marx,  points  to  co- 
operative production  as  the  goal,  but  says  that  an  un- 
derstanding among  all  the  workmen  of  all  countries  will 
be  necessary.     Now  one  sees  that  to  make  strikes  and 
combinations  effective,  there  should  be  an  agreement 
amongst  the  working  classes  to  support  each  other  ; 
e.g.  that  if  the  workers  in  any  branch  of  production 
in    England    should    strike,   foreign   workers    should 
not  come  over  from    Belgium   or   Denmark   to  take 
their  place  ;  for  if  they  do,  the  capitalist  could  defy 
his  hands  at  home.     One  also  sees  how,  if  there  were 
funds  subscribed  by  all,  a  part   could  be  transferred 
to  any  given  place  in  any  country  to   enable  a   local 
strike    to    resist.     This  we  can  sec  ;  though    it    was 
somewhat  Utopian  to  expect  that  such  a  plan  would 
long  continue.     We  do  not  see  how  an  international 
understanding  is  needed  to  realize  co-operative  pro- 


130  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

duction,  except,  indeed,  so  far  as  the  capitalist  might, 
if  foreign  cheap  labour  were  imported,  sooner  starve 
the  co-operative  producers  by  underselling.  But  for 
this  purpose  an  understanding  of  mutual  interests, 
without  the  founding  of  a  society  with  subscriptions, 
would  seem  sufficient.  Or  the  workmen  in  each 
country  might  agitate  till  they  forced  their  Govern- 
ment to  forbid  the  importation  of  cheap  foreign 
labourers. 

Marx  had,  at  the  commencement  o'f  his  career, 
urged  the  necessity  of  the  working  men  getting  first 
their  political  rights,  in  order  to  make  their  influence 
felt  in  the  State,  which  was  also  the  idea  of  Louis 
Blanc,  as  it  was  of  the  leaders  of  the  English  Chartists. 
But  in  the  International  Congress  at  Brussels  in  1868, 
it  appears  that  the  Congress  repudiated  State  action. 
If  so,eitherMarx's  influence  and  ideas  were  discounted, 
or  he  had  changed  his  views.  By  making  their  in- 
fluence felt  in  the  State,  he  thought  in  1864  that 
beneficial  legislation  might  be  secured  for  the  working 
classes,  and  that  gradually,  without  revolution,  co- 
operative labour,  without  the  capitalist,  might  be 
introduced.  After  the  Congress  of  1873  Marx 
retired  into  private  life  to  finish  the  second  volume  of 
the  book  that  has  made  him  famous — "  Das  Kapital,"* 
in  which  whatever  may  have  been  his  previous  views 
his  final  ones  are  given,  and  in  which  Collectivism  is 
indicated  as  a  goal,  without,  however,  being  expounded 

■•  He  had  previously  published,  in  1847,  "  Mis^re  de  la 
Philosophie,"  in  answer  to  Proudhon's  "  Philosophie  de  la 
Misi^re,"  and  in  1859,  "A  Critique  of  Political  Economy," 
the  latter  mostly  reproduced  in  **  Das  Kapital." 


THE   NEW   SOCIALISM   AND   ITS   ARGUMENT.      I3( 

as  a  system,  or  without  making  it  clear  whether  he 
occupies  the  evolutionary  or  revolutionary  stand- 
point. At  all  events,  the  argument  on  which 
Collectivism,  the  new  Socialism,  rests,  is  given  at 
great  length,  and  with  much  repetition. 


II. 

The  new  Socialists  say  that  rhe  previous  efforts 
failed  because  they  were  Utopian,  and  because  the 
fulness  of  time  was  not  come  for  the  experiments. 
Industry,  on  the  grand  scale,  had  not  universalized 
itself,  the  evil  of  the  existing  system  had  not  sufficiently 
declared  itself,  the  State  had  not  shown  what  it  could 
do  in  the  sphere  of  industry,  and  the  people  had  not 
got  politic  1  power.  The  conditions  are  all  different 
to-day.  Moreover,  the  Socialists  say,  "  We  will  not 
this  time  commit  the  mistakes  of  the  past  Socialists  ; 
we  will  not  abolish  private  property,  but  only  con- 
siderably limit  it ;  we  don't  propose  to  do  away  with 
inheritance,  as  the  St.  Simonians  did,  only  we  shall 
so  arrange  that  there  will  not  be  overgrown  private 
fortunes  to  leave  ;  but  we  do  propose  to  do  away 
with  profits,  with  rents,  and,  above  all,  with  interest, 
the  taking  of  money  for  the  use  of  money.  There 
shall  only  be  wages  which  will  be  increased  by  what 
now  goes  to  rent  and  interest,  and  each  one's  share 
shall  be  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  his  work. 
The  land  and  capital  must  henceforth  belong  to  the 
State  for  the  good  of  all,  instead  of  being  private 
property  for  the  good  of  a  few,  and  to  the  detriment 


132  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND  OLD, 

of  the  many.  Such  is  the  just  ideal  for  which  the 
time  is  ripe." 

This  new  Socialism  appeals  to  political  economy, 
and  it  appeals  to  history;  moreover,  it  appeals  to 
ethics.  It  calls  itself  Scientific  Socialism,  and  for 
these  reasons  it  must  be  regarded  with  much  more 
seriousness  than  any  previous  form.  All  would 
seem  to  turn  on  whether  the  appeals  to  economics 
and  ethics  justify  the  conclusion  drawn  from  them, 
and  accordingly  it  becomes  necessary  to  examine  the 
arguments  of  Karl  Marx,  and  his  views  on  capital 
and  its  origin,  with  some  attention  and  at  some 
length. 

According  to  Marx,  there  are  three  main  stages  in 
the  history  of  industry  :  First,  the  stage  of  the  handi- 
crafts ;  secondly,  the  stage  of  what  he  calls  (not  very 
accurately)  manufactures  and  division  of  labour, 
though  without  much  help  from  machinery  ;  thirdly, 
the  stage  of  the  great  m.achine-produced  industry — 
the  modern  stage  in  which  we  still  are.  In  the  first 
stage,  which  lasted  from  time  immemorial — at  least 
from  the  days  of  Tubal  Cain — the  handicraftsman 
owned  the  few  instruments  of  his  art,  and  the  results 
of  his  labour  were  his  without  deduction.  If  the 
materials  on  which  he  wrought  were  likewise  his,  the 
product  was  his  absolutely  and  completely ;  if,  as 
might  happen  with  some  craftsmen,  as  the  tailor  or 
the  shoemaker,  he  wrought  on  the  materials,  the  cloth 
or  leather,  of  another,  he  received  a  customary  price 
for  his  labour.  There  was  no  employer  who  made  a 
profit  out  of  his  labour.  A  small  qualification  only 
needs  to  be  made  to  this.     From  the  Middle  Ages 


THE   NEW  SOCIALISM  AND   ITS   ARGUMENT.      1 33 

onwards,  under  guild  or  corporation  regulations,  a 
master  workman  might  have  two  or  three  apprentices 
and  as  many  journeymen,  the  latter  at  daily  wages, 
in  which  case  the  master  had,  of  course,  some  small 
profits,  and  might,  perhaps,  be  considered  as  an 
embryonic  or  potential  capitalist  in  the  Socialist 
sense. 

It  is  in  the  next  stage,  however,  that  the  capitalist 
proper  appears,  though  only  half-fledged.  In  this 
stage,  which  came  necessarily  with  the  advantages  of 
division  of  labour,  masters  employed  men  at  agreed- 
on  daily  or  weekly  wages,  generally  paying  them  as 
low  as  possible,  and  being  always,  as  Adam  Smith 
affirms,  in  a  kind  of  tacit  combination  for  that  purpose, 
so  far,  at  least,  as  concerned  the  average  rate,  though 
particular  individuals  sometimes  found  it  to  their 
interest  to  pay  higher.  In  Socialist  phrase,  they 
"  exploited  the  workers  " — used  them  to  make  a  profit 
out  of  their  labour.  Why  did  the  handicraftsman 
work  for  them .''  In  general,  he  had  no  choice. 
Either  he  could  not  compete  with  the  larger  pro- 
ducers, or,  as  generally  happened,  there  was  no  question 
of  competition,  because  only  associated  labour  under 
an  employer  was  possible.  Where  the  product  con- 
sisted of  many  parts,  or  the  process  of  making 
involved  several  successive  operations,  as  in  Adam 
Smith's  example  of  pin-making,  or  when  the  com- 
modity itself  was  large  as  well  as  made  up  of  parts, 
the  factory,  or  workshop,  or  workyard,  necessarily 
came  into  existence,  bringing  with  it  a  large  number 
of  men  in  one  place,  who  received  wages  from  an 
employer. 


134  SOCIALISM  NEW  AND  OLD. 

The  chief  thing  to  be  noted  about  this  stage  is  that 
profits  proper  first  appear,  and  become  the  source  of 
further  capital — the  first  capital  having  come  either 
from  the  savings  of  the  small  producers,  from  loans 
by  the  money-lender  or  banker,  from  the  gains  made 
in  trade  by  merchants  or  dealers,  or  even,  though 
indirectly,  from  the  rent  of  landlords,*  We  have, 
however,  reached  the  stage  of  capitalist  production, 
though,  as  yet,  in  undeveloped  form  and  extending  to 
relatively  few  industries.  In  Adam  Smith's  time  it 
had  attained  considerable  dimensions^  though,  of 
course,  nothing  to  be  compared  with  its  colossal  scale 
at  the  present  day. 

The  state  of  things  in  the  middle  of  last  century, 
on  the  eve  of  the  industrial  revolution,  was  briefly 
this  :  in  most  of  the  older  trades  there  was  the  mas- 
ter worker  with  his  few  apprentices  and  journeymen. 
The  master  worked  himself,  the  small  necessary  capi- 
tal was  his,  and  so  were  the  small  profits.  His  social 
status  was  little  superior  to  his  assistant's,  and  the 
most  he  could  hope  for  was,  as  trade  regulations 
became  less  stringent  in  limiting  the  number  of 
journeymen,  to  raise  himself  to  the  dignity  of  a  small 
manufacturer.  In  a  considerable  number  of  industries 
there  were  small  capitalist  employers  who  paid  wages 
to  a  number  of  men,  but  who  did  no  other  work  than 
that  of  superintendence  and  general  conduct  of  the 
concern.  It  is  worth  noting  that  in  the  cotton,  wool- 
len, linen,  silk,  and  other  textile  industries  which  have 
since  grown  great   staple  trades,  the   spinning   and 

'  See  Marx's  "  Capital,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  774,—"  On  the  Genesis  of 
ihe  Industrial  Capitalist." 


THE   NEW   SOCIALISM   AND   ITS   ARGUMENT.      I35 

weaving  was  not  generally  done  in  factories,  but  by- 
men  and  women  in  their  own  homes  working  on  their 
own  account,  although  in  some  cases,  especially  in 
the  woollen  trade,  there  were  employers  who  had 
20,  50,  or  even  100  paid  hands/ 

The  revolution  which  totally  changed  this  relatively 
simple  organization  of  labour  began  in  the  middle  of 
last  century,  and  was  brought  about  by  a  remarkable 
series  of  inventions  and  discoveries,  partly  referable 
to  increased  scientific  knowledge,  partly  to  the  genius 
of  individuals.  This  spirit  of  invention  and  discovery, 
which  has  since  extended  to  every  industry  — some 
being  even  wholly  created  by  it — at  first  directed 
itself  to  the  staple  textile  industries  of  Great  Britain, 
the  cotton,  linen,  woollen,  and  others  ;  and  these  were 
revolutionized  from  top  to  bottom.  The  essence  of 
the  change  effected  by  the  new  inventions  was  briefly 
this  :  the  new  invention  usually  took  the  form  of  a 
machine  which  could  produce  more  in  the  same  time 
than  could  be  produced  by  an  equal  number  of 
workers  without  its  aid  ;  perhaps  it  could  produce 
two  or  three,  or  even  five  times  as  much,  and  if  this 
could  only  be  sold  at  the  old  price,  or  a  trifle  lower 
so  as  to  draw  new  customers,  the  owner  could,  before 
the  price  fell,  make  great  extra  profits — after  making 
good  to  himself  the  interest  on  the  money  invested  in 
the  machine. 

Or   the    advantage    of  the  machine   may  be   thus 

stated  :  If  the  machine  produces  twice  as  much  in  the 

same  time  with  the  same  number  of  hands,  then  with 

half  or  a  little  more  than  half  the  number  of  hands, 

•  See  Toynbee's  "  Industrial  Revolution." 


13^  SOCIALISM  NEW  AND  OLD. 

and  with  a  less  large  and  less  expensive  machine, 
there  will  be  the  same  turn-out  as  by  the  old  number 
without  the  machine  ;  in  other  words,  the  employer 
will  get  the  same  result  with  half  the  labourers,  and 
the  wages  of  the  displaced  half  might  be  put  in  his 
pocket  as  extra  profit — minus,  of  course,  the  interest 
of  the  capital  sunk  in  the  machine. 

"  But  whence,"  it  may  be  asked,  "  came  the  capital 
sunk  in  the  machine?"  In  the  first  case  (when  the  same 
hands  were  kept  on),  it  was  either  borrowed  or  saved 
out  of  previous  profits,  or  most  likely  it  came  from 
both  sources  ;  in  the  second  case  the  necessary  capital 
can  come  from  the  saved  wages,  being  borrowed  in  the 
first  instance.  In  the  first  case  the  great  additional 
profits  soon  enabled  the  employer  to  extinguish  both 
borrowed  principal  and  interest,  after  which,  the  extra 
profits  continuing,  he  was  in  a  position  to  stil}  further 
enlarge  the  scale  of  his  enterprise,  as  he  usually  did. 
He  did  not  often,  until  later  times,  under  Trades 
Union  strikes,  turn  part  of  his  circulating  capital  into 
fixed,  thereby  displacing  part  of  his  hands  ;  because 
the  larger  the  scale  of  production,  the  more  easily  he 
could  undersell  not  merely  the  producer  by  the  old 
and  ruder  methods,  but  the  producer  by  machinery 
on  a  smaller  scale  in  a  smaller  factory.  He  could 
well  afford  to  sell  cheaper,  and  yet  have  higher  profit. 
Besides,  cheapness  widens  the  circle  of  customers, 
enlarges  the  demand,  and  the  enlarged  demand  re- 
acting on  expenses  of  production  lessens  them,  thus 
stimulating  him  to  produce  in  ever  larger  quantity. 

With  the  incoming  of  the  new  machinery  there  was 
a  great  race  for  wealth  and  fortune.     Whoever  got 


THE  NEW  SOCIALISM  AND  ITS  ARGUMENT.      1 37 

the  machinery  first  could  undersell  rivals,  drive  them 
from  the  field,  and  step  into  their  custom.  It  was  a 
grand  case  of  the  survival  of  the  strongest,  or  the 
fittest — the  fittest  being  a  strange  mixture  of  good 
and  bad  types.  The  small  producers  were  devoured 
by  the  large.  Moreover,  the  period  of  struggle  being 
prolonged,  as  ever  newer  and  more  potent  or  more 
cunning  machines  were  invented,  the  large  were  in 
turn  liable  to  be  devoured  by  the  still  larger,  a  risk 
in  the  business  sphere  which  continues  down  to  our 
own  time. 

Instead  of  hands  being  turned  adrift  by  the  new 
machinery,  more  and  more  were  needed  in  the  cotton, 
woollen,  and  other  industries.  Then  came  the  con- 
quest and  temporary  monopoly  of  the  Continental 
market,  which  resulted  in  a  demand  for  more  hands 
and  the  pressure  into  the  service  of  women,  married 
and  unmarried,  girls,  boys,  infants  of  both  sexes.  By 
the  monopoly  of  the  Continental  market,  as  much  as 
by  the  labour,  graduated  in  cheapness,  of  women, 
young  people,  and  children,  the  profits  of  the  success- 
ful capitalist  became  something  extraordinary,  being 
swollen  by  the  conquest  of  his  home  and  foreign 
competitors,  by  excessive  working  hours,  by  mono- 
poly prices,  sometimes  by  his  own  special  genius  and 
aptitude  for  business. 

The  general  introduction  of  steam  power  into 
manufactures  between  1830  and  1850,  and  the  demands 
of  the  new  foreign  markets  in  the  East  and  in  America, 
carried  the  tendency  to  large  production  still  farther, 
and  the  latter  date,  or  1848,  the  date  of  the  political 
revolution,  wc  might  roughly  fix  upon  as  the  com- 


138  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

pletion  of  the  industrial  revolution,  and  the  estabh'sh- 
ment  of  the  capitalistic  regime  in  England,  the  Hke 
phenomena  following  after  some  time  in  France, 
the  United  States,  Germany,  and  all  civilized 
nations. 


III. 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  see  the  essence  of  the 
new  Socialism  and  of  Karl  Marx's  indictment  of  the 
capitalists,  on  which  chiefly  the  Socialist's  argument 
rests.     All  wealth,  and  all  exchange  value,  according 
to  Marx,  is  the  result  of  labour,  and  of  labour  only, 
and  to   the  labourers,  the  real  producers,  all  wealth 
should  belong.     Labour  of  head,  directing  and  super- 
intending labour,  is  allowed ;  how  far  it  contributes 
to  the  result  he  does  not  attempt  to  tell  us,  though 
the  implication  is  that  the  labour  is  neither  difficult 
nor  important.     But   certain    it    is    that    it    receives 
an  extravagantly   exaggerated    reward,   in    addition 
to  interest   on  capital.     Capital,  Marx   also   allows, 
is  necessary   as   well   as   labour,    and   even    increas- 
ingly  necessary,   on    account  of  the  ever-increasing 
machinery  required  by  modern   industry.     But  then 
this   capital  should  belong   to    the    labourers  in  the 
total,    to  the    collectivity   of  labourers,    and    not    to 
private  persons  or  to  limited  companies.     And  why  ? 
Because,  according  to   him,  capital    is  the  result  of 
spoliation  :  of  the  capitalists  withholding  wages  due 
to  the  labourers  ;  and  secondly,  if  labourers  do   not 
own    the   capital,    they    must    continue    as  now,  the 
slaves  of  the  capitalist,  the  financier,  and  the  receiver 


THE  NEW  SOCIALISM  AND  ITS  ARGUMENT.      1 39 

of  interest,— the  slaves  of  the  classes  who  live  by 
their  labour.  Their  condition  will  even  grow  worse, 
since  more  fixed  capital  will  be  required.  Capital  is 
not  the  result  of  a  virtuous  abstinence  on  the  part  of 
the  capitalist,  as  Senior,  a  middle-class  economist, 
anxious  to  make  out  a  good  case  for  the  capitalist, 
maintained.  Or,  if  it  is  the  result  of  saving,  it  is 
saving  from  a  previous  plunder  taken  from  the  work- 
ing classes.     Such  is  Marx's  view. 

To  represent  capital  as  the  result  of  saving,  as 
Senior  and  others  do,  is  to  misrepresent  fact  and 
history.  Capital  came  and  comes  from  profits,  accu- 
mulations made  at  the  expense  of  the  workers,  and 
these  came,  and  still  come,  from  surplus  valtie  con- 
ferred by  the  workers  on  the  materials  given  them. 
To  prove  that  this  surplus  value  is  solely  conferred 
by  the  labourers  is,  according  to  Marx,  easy  ;  and, 
it  must  be  allowed,  if  we  grant  his  premises  and  his 
argument,  they  will  go  far  to  prove  the  case  of  the 
Socialists — from  the  moral  point  at  least.  A  close 
attention  should  therefore  be  given  to  his  reasoning 
here,  as  involving  the  central  issue  in  the  whole 
Socialistic  controversy,  and  because  on  it  rests  German 
Socialism,  and  indeed  all  modern  Socialism. 

According  to  Marx — as  according  to  Ricardo,  who 
is  the  declared  rock  of  the  Socialistic  faith — the  ex- 
change value  of  any  manufactured  product  depends 
on  the  total  quantity  of  labour  necessary  to  produce 
it,  and  bring  it  to  market.  And  the  additional  value 
cc^nfcrred  on  any  materials  is  due  solely  to  tlic 
additional  human  labour  exerted  on  them.  The 
yarn  of  the  spinner  costs  so  much.     When  it  turns 


140  SOCIALISM    NEW  AND  OLD. 

out  as  woven  cotton  fabrics  it  is  of  so  much  more 
value,  because  lof  the  additional  human  labour  that 
came  In  contact  with  the  yarn — which  additional 
labour  is  nov/  crystallized,  objectified,  or  "  congealed," 
to  use  the  expression  of  Marx,  in  the  cotton  cloth. 
The  machinery  confers  no  additional  exchange  value 
on  the  raw  materials  ;  or  only  as  much  as  itself  loses 
in  wear  and  tear.  Nor  can  the  added  value  come 
from  the  act  of  exchange,  which  merely  gives  value 
for  value,  which  is  a  mere  swopping  of  equivalents. 
Consequently,  human  labour  alone  confers  additional 
or  surplus  value.  He  goes  on  to  show  that  iox part  of 
this  new  value  conferred,  the  workman  has  been  paid 
in  his  wages  (which,  however,  he  maintains  always 
tend  to  the  Ricardian  minimum),  for  the  remainder, 
or  surplus  value  proper,  he  has  not  been  paid.  This, 
which  is  generally  called  profits,  has  been  confiscated 
by  the  capitalist. 

This  surplus  value  may  otherwise  be  defined  as  all 
above  the  minimum  of  bare  subsistence.  Marx  is  fond 
of  putting  the  case  in  another  way.  Suppose,  he  says, 
the  working  day  to  consist  of  twelve  hours,  during 
the  first  six  of  which  the  worker  confers  as  much 
value  as  would  amount  to  his  own  subsistence,  the 
amount  he  actually  receives ;  then  during  the  re- 
maining six  hours  he  works  for  the  master  for 
nothing.  And  the  worst  of  it  is  that  any  improve- 
ments which  reduce  the  cost  of  the  labourer's  neces- 
saries only  r-esult  in  making  him  work  a  greater 
number  of  hours  gratis.  The  worker's  case  is  the  old 
case  of  the  serf,  working  so  many  days  for  himself  and 
so  many   for   his  lord,   only   that   there  is  no  such 


THE   NEW   SOCIALISM   AND   ITS  ARGUMENT.      I4I 

palpable  division  of  the  modern  "  wage-slave's  "  hours, 
so  that  you  could  say  when  he  was  working  for  him- 
self and  when  for  the  master.  In  fact,  slavery,  serfage, 
the  corvee,  modern  rack-renting,  and  capitalist  appro- 
priation of  surplus  value,  are  all  at  bottom  identical, 
according  to  Marx,  since  all  consist  in  the  superior 
exacting  whatever  is  produced  above  the  necessary 
means  of  subsistence  of  the  worker.^ 

Now  as  to  this  argument  of  Marx's  regarding  the 
cause  of  exchange  value,  there  would  have  been  more 
force  in  it  during  the  stage  of  the  handicraft  industry, 
because  the  workman's  efforts,  aided  by  his  traditional 
tools,  did  confer  the  additional  value  on  the  materials 
on  which  his  craft  was  exercised.  The  labour  of  the 
carpenter,  aided  by  plane  and  chisel,  did  confer  on 
the  planks  the  additional  exchange  value  they  had  in 
the  form  of  a  box  or  table,  and  there  is  reason  to  say, 
though  it  is  rather  a  verbal  subtlety,  that  the  work 
was  the  work  of  the  carpenter  and  not  also  the  work 
of  the  plane  and  chisel.  At  any  rate,  if  the  tools  werfe 
his  as  well  as  the  materials,  the  whole  product  was 
his.  In  this  case  he  is,  as  Adam  Smith  says,  both 
master  and  workman,  and  enjoys  the  whole  produce 
of  his  own  labour,  or  the  whole  value  which  it  adds  to 
the  materials  on  which  it  is  bestowed. 

But  as  Adam  Smith  goes  on  to  say,  there  were  in 
his  time  few  such  independent  workmen  ;  the  greater 
proportion  served  under  a  master,  who  furnished  the 
more  expensive  instruments  of  production — in  fact 
the  considerable  capital  which  was  necessary,  which 

^  •'  Capital,"  vol,  i.  p.  218  (Eng.  Tr.). 


142  SOCIALISM  NEW  AND  OLD. 

the  workers  did  not  possess,  and  without  which  in 
the  possession  of  someone  they  could  not  find  em- 
ployment. Can  it  any  longer  be  said  that  all  the 
value  is  due  to  the  labourers  solely,  and  that 
therefore  they  should  receive  the  total  product,  de- 
ducting only  the  master's  materials  ?  Doubtless  their 
labour  was  necessary,  and  it,  aided  by  the  tools 
and  appliances,  did  the  work,  made  the  changes  of 
value  in  the  materials  ;  but  can  it  therefore  be  said 
that  they  are  to  get  all  the  new  value  of  the  product, 
and  to  have  the  same  advantage  as  if  all  the  instru- 
ments of  production  were  theirs  ?  Must  they  not  in 
fairness  allow  some  deduction  because  they  do  not 
possess  the  necessary  tools  and  appliances ;  or  can 
they  expect  to  be  in  the  same  position  as  they  would 
have  been  in  had  all  the  means  of  production  been 
their  own  ?  Unless  the  employer  receives  a  portion 
as  profits  he  would  have  no  inducement  to  employ 
them,  as  Adam  Smith  says.  Besides,  he  who  fur- 
nished the  fixed  capital  had  also  generally  founded 
the  business.  Without  his  energy,  intelligence,  eye 
for  an  opportunity,  in  addition  to  his  capital,  this 
employment  and  means  of  livelihood  v/ould  not  have 
existed  at  all  at  that  place  and  time. 

This  capitalist  when  he  arose  was  a  benefactor  to 
them  as  much  as  to  himself  Without  this  type  of 
man  arising,  seeing  an  opening,  finding  somehow  the 
capital  and  risking  it,  the  thing  could  not  have  been 
started  at  all.  Who  was  to  do  it  if  he  had  failed  to 
arise  ?  The  Government,  in  England  at  least,  would 
not ;  the  labourers  could  not ;  the  capitalist  came. 
Having  already  been  one  in  a  small  way,  and  having 


THE   NEW   SOCIALISM   AND   ITS   ARGUMENT.      I43 

made  some  savings,  he  borrowed  more  from  the 
banks,  whose  functions  and  fortunes  were  rising  with 
his  own.  He  had  good  business  abihties  :  the  enter- 
prise succeeded.  He  grew  from  less  to  more^  and 
the  more  he  grew  the  easier  it  was  to  grow  still 
greater. 

Now,  be  it  remembered,  it  is  a  question  of  the  fair 
and  equitable  division  of  the  product  that  here  con- 
cerns us,  because  the  Socialist's  argument  appeals 
to  considerations  of  justice  ;  and,  confining  ourselves 
to  theseconsiderationsof  justice,  had  not  the  employer 
just  described  a  fair  claim  not  only  to  good  wages 
for  his  own  anxious  and  difficult  work,  perhaps  even 
extra  wages  for  his  genius,  but  also  a  claim  to  get 
interest  on  his  capital  sunk  in  the  buildings  and  ap- 
pliances, as  well  as  invested  in  unsold  goods  until  they 
are  purchased  ?  especially  as  he  himself  has  to  pay  in- 
terest on  any  capital  he  may  have  borrowed.  He  has 
a  fair  claim  to  good  wages,  current  rate  of  interest, 
and  compensation  for  deterioration  of  his  fixed 
capital.  No  doubt  he  often  got  and  kept  much 
more,  the  morality  of  which  I  am  not  now  going 
to  discuss  any  further  than  to  say,  that  we  must 
judge  him  by  the  moral  standard  of  the  time,  and 
the  morality  of  the  time  absolved  him,  as  political 
economists  have  since  absolved  him,  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  done  under  freedom  of  contract,  which 
was  supposed  to  confer  a  general  absolution  for  all 
hard  bargains  driven  under  it. 

If  interest  on  capital  can  be  defended  on  grounds 
of  equity  in  Adam  Smith's  time,  still  more  can  it  be 
defended    in    our  days    of  universal    machinery  and 


144  SOCIALISM  NEW  AND  OLD. 

enormous  field  of  investment.  For,  in  the  first  place, 
neither  value  nor  "  surplus  value  "  can  be  said  to  be 
solely  due  to  human  labour  without  a  manifest  begging 
of  the  question.  The  machines  in  the  factory  labour 
concurrently  with  the  human  beings,  often,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  "  self-acting  "  machines,  they  do  essentially 
the  same  kind  of  work.  In  fact,  looking  at  the  pro- 
cess of  weaving,  where  hundreds  of  yards  are  coming 
into  being  before  our  eyes,  one  would  rather  say  that 
the  machines  do  the  chief  part  of  the  work,  are  the 
real  creators,  the  human  labour  consisting  chiefly  of 
tending  and  superintending — the  latter  even  in  some 
cases  being  dispensed  with  by  cunning  "  self-minders." 
Not  merely  do  the  machines  labour  and  confer  values 
in  use,  they  confer  exchange  values,  and  their  service 
is  charged  for  and  paid  in  the  exchange  price.  The 
machinery  works  like  the  man,  automatically,  but 
skilfully  ;  it  confers  values,  and  though  it  requires 
no  food  like  the  man,  it  has  cost  much  money,  and  it 
gradually  wears  away  or  becomes  suddenly  depre- 
ciated by  better  machines,  for  which  reasons  both 
interest  on  its  cost  price  and  a  percentage  for  wear 
and  tear,  as  well  as  for  possible  depreciation,  must  be 
charged  in  the  value  or  price  of  the  things  produced. 
According  to  Marx,  machines  add  no  exchange 
value  to  the  product  they  help  to  create,  except  what 
they  themselves  lose  in  the  process.  As  much  value 
as  they  lose  is  passed  over  and  is  added  on  to  the 
value  of  the  product,  but  no  more.  But  it  is  a  matter 
of  fact  that  needs  no  argument  (though  it  is  a  conclu- 
sion laid  down  by  Ricardo  and  Mill),  that  the  value 
and  price  of  things  made  by  machinery  is  increased, 


THE  NEW  SOCIALISM  AND  ITS  ARGUMENT.      I4S 

because  interest  has  to  be  allowed  for  on  the  fixed 
capital.  How,  then,  can  this  additional  value  be  due 
to  labour  ?  Can  it  be  said  that  the  machine  is  itself 
the  result  of  labour  ?  It  can  be,  and  it  is  said  by 
some,  but  it  will  serve  nothing  for  the  argument  ; 
because  the  labour,  crystallized  or  embodied  in  the 
machine,  has  been  fully  paid  for,  including  the  profits 
of  the  maker.  The  present  owner  has  paid  fully  all 
previous  labour,  and  previous  profits  as  well,  in  the 
purchase  money  of  the  machine  ;  it  is  now  his,  and 
not  his  hands',  and  if  he  gets  an  increased  price  for 
his  total  product,  as  he  does,  because  he  allows  for 
interest  on  the  money  sunk  in  the  machine,  this  in- 
crease is  his  and  not  his  workers.  In  the  case  of  the 
machine,  it  may  be  said  by  the  Socialists  that  it  was 
the  producer  of  it  who  despoiled  his  labourers  to  the 
extent  of  the  interest  charged.  But  the  capitalist 
who  made  the  machine  has  the  same  defence  for  his 
interest.  He  also  had  to  use  costly  fixed  capital, 
and  could  not  afford  to  give  to  the  labourers  all  the 
price  of  his  product.  The  Socialists  of  the  school 
of  Marx  merely  repeat  perpetually  the  proposition 
that  all  exchange  value  depends  on  labour,*  and 
assume  perpetually  the  proposition,  "all  the  product 
should  belong  to  the  labourer."  The  complete 
answer  is  :  every  manufactured  product  requires  fixed 
capital  as  well  as  labour,  and  the  owner  of  the  capital 

■  This  is  Ricardo's  theory  ;  but  Mill  has  rightly  corrected  it 
by  showing  that  exchange  value  depends  on  wages  and  profits, 
— comparative  wages  and  comparative  profits, — rather  than  on 
"quantity  of  labour,"  which,  as  we  shall  see  fully  later  on, 
neither  does  nor  can  determine  value. 


146  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

always  expects  and  on  the  average  gets  (in  the  price 
of  the  products)  a  return  for  the  service  his  capital 
renders  equal  to  the  current  rate  of  interest.  Con- 
sequently, neither  is  the  product  due  solely  to  labour, 
nor  yet  the  exchange  value. 

In  reality,  no  one  denies  that  the  prices  of  things 
— which  is  the  real  point — are  higher  than  they  other- 
wise would  be,  and  sometimes  much  higher,  simply 
because  interest  has  to  be  paid  for.  It  is  a  fact  known 
too  well  to  all  of  us,  that  the  money  values  of  nearly  all 
commodities  (and  many  services)  are  greatly  swollen 
on  account  of  interest  that  is  paid  on  fixed  capital.^ 
This  is  a  question  of  fact  of  which  every  one  can  judge, 
but  it  must  not  be  confused,  as  it  is  by  the  Socialists, 
with  the  moral  question,  whether  it  is  morally  right 
for  capitalists  to  take  interest,  or  whether  it  is  socially 
just  that  they  should  get  it  This  last  is  a  debatable 
question,  only  the  negative  must  not  be  assumed  as 
the  result  of  a  laboured  abstract  argument,  which 
endeavours  to  prove  that  all  value  is  due  to  human 
labour,  mostly  of  the  manual  sort,  that  machines 
add  nothing  to  value,  in  which  the  point  at  issue 
is  really  begged,  after  an  elaborate  parade  of 
arguments. 

And  now  to  come  to  the  moral  question.     Is  it 
right  for   the  capitalist  to  look  for  interest  on  his 


'  The  prices  of  commodities  made  by  machinery  have  no 
doubt  also  fallen  through  facility  of  production  ;  they  would 
have  fallen  much  more  were  it  not  that  the  price  of  the  total 
turnout  must  cover  interest,  and  depreciation  of  machinery, 
sometimes,  where  more  than  one  kind  of  machinery  has  been 
operative,  several  interests   as  well  as  the  profits  of  dealers,  &C' 


THE   NEW   SOCIALISM   AND   ITS   ARGUMENT.      I47 

capital  as  well  as  for  wages  ?  Why  should  he  not  ?  I 
ask.  As  he  is  not  an  angel,  nor  even  a  professing 
philanthropist,  but  only  an  ordinary  human  being  like 
the  rest  of  us,  with  an  ineradicable  core  of  egoism  in 
him,  allowed  to  be  legitimate  by  Adam  Smith  and 
Mill,  both  eminent  writers  on  morals  as  well  as  on 
economics,  he  is  fully  justified  in  looking  for  the 
market  rate  of  interest  on  his  capital,  and  the  like 
applies  to  smaller  capitalists  and  to  all  who  invest 
money  in  productive  work.  As  society  is  now  con- 
stituted and  industry  organized,  whoever  saves  and 
advances  money  for  productive  purposes  does  good, 
why  should  he  not  get  some  return  .-*  If  there  were 
no  interest  paid  at  present  few  would  save,  and 
none  would  lend  except  to  a  friend  ;  half  the  indus- 
tries would  at  once  collapse  ;  and  of  the  remainder 
few  would  continue  if  the  employers  received  only 
wages  of  management  and  no  interest.  These,  no 
doubt,  are  considerations  of  expediency,  but  they 
show  both  the  necessity  and  the  advantages  of  in- 
terest under  our  present  industrial  and  social  system. 
Interest  at  present  is  necessary ;  no  one  acting 
under  business  motives  will  lend  for  nothing ;  as 
Emile  de  Lavelcye  says,  no  capitalist  employer  will 
give  to  his  employes  the  whole  proceeds  of  his  busi- 
ness, deducting  only  his  own  wages.  To  suppose  that 
men  will  do  either,  is  to  suppose  that  they  have 
reached  a  far  higher  moral  level  than  they  actually 
have  :  I  do  not  say  higher  than  is  possible  in  a  distant 
future  period.  To  take  interest  may  not  be  high 
morally  ;  it  certainly  docs  not  agree  with  the  precept 
in   the  Sermon  on   the  Mount,   "  Give  to  him  that 


148  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

asketh  of  thee,  and  from  him  that  would  borrow 
turn  not  thou  away,"  but  it  is  not  wrong  nor  immoral 
in  our  time  and  social  circumstances.  It  is  a  case  of 
getting  something  for  the  use  of  something,  a  quid 
pro  quo  universal  in  the  sphere  of  business  which 
even  philanthropists  practise  when  they  descend  into 
that  sphere,  and  which  has  been  very  profitable  to 
the  labouring  classes  in  the  total. 

I  must  grant,  however,  to  the  disciple  of  Karl  Marx, 
that  the  capitalist,  from  the  beginning  of  his  reign, 
and  especially  from  the  time  of  the  Industrial  Revo- 
lution, could  have  afforded  higher  wages  consistent 
with  high  profits — much  higher,  in  fact,  than  he  now 
gets,  though  on  a  smaller  surface  of  capital  ;  that 
morally,  therefore,  some  of  these  profits  should  have 
gone  to  his  labourers.  I  say  some,  because  a  large 
part  was  due  to  his  own  business  genius,  perhaps  to  an 
invention  he  made  or  bought,  to  the  conquest  of  his 
rivals  and  the  absorption  of  their  profits  ;  later  on 
some  was  due  to  monopoly  prices  charged  either  to 
the  public,  or  to  the  foreigner,  and  whatever  extra 
profits  came  in  these  ways  was  clearly  not  due  to  a 
spoliation  of  the  workers,  whoever  else  might  have 
cause  of  complaint. 

I  admit  other  charges  made  against  the  capitalist ; 
that  he  overworked  as  well  as  underpaid  his  male 
hands,  that  after  pressing,  though  on  strictly  economic 
principles,  women  and  children  into  his  service,  he 
overworked  and  underpaid  them  too  ;  while  some- 
times finding  a  means,  through  their  low  wages,  of 
depressing  still  further  the  wages  of  the  grown-up 


THE  NEW  SOCIALISM  AND  ITS  ARGUMENT.      I49 

men,  because  if  the  wife  and  children  earn  so  much, 
the  man,  the  head  of  the  family,  might  do  with  so 
much  less,  it  being  only  necessary  that  the  total  wages 
of  the  family-group  should  reach  the  Ricardian  stan- 
dard. I  allow  that  he  was  often  callous  as  well  as 
greedy  and  covetous,  and  that  provided  he  made  his 
profits  he  little  recked  that  "  the  children  were  weep- 
ing in  the  playtime  of  the  others  in  the  country  of  the 
free,"  or  that  the  future  physique  of  the  nation  was 
being  endangered  by  the  mothers  working  in  un- 
healthy factories  as  well  as  the  fathers  and  the 
children. 

I  admit  other  charges  less  insisted  on — that  with- 
out compunction  he  ruined  rivals  according  to  the 
accepted  business  ethics  ;  that  having  sent  them  to 
the  bottom  by  superior  mass  of  metal,  and  hoisting 
thereafter  the  pirate  flag  of  monopoly,  he  and  his 
surviving  compeers  combined  and  levied  taxes  on  the 
public  through  raised  prices  wherever  possible  and 
prudent. 

The  past  sins  of  the  capitalist  I  admit,  the  worst 
of  which  as  affecting  the  labouring  classes  have  been 
transcribed  by  Karl  Marx  from  Blue  Books  and  the 
Reports  of  Commissions.  And  they  are  on  record 
in  the  late  Lord  Shaftesbury's  speeches  during  the 
debates  on  the  Factory  Act,  in  1844.  Those  things 
are  sufficiently  evil,  but  amongst  his  evil  deeds  should 
not  be  included  the  taking  of  interest  or  of  fair  profits, 
which,  however,  is  the  chief  charge  brought  against 
him.  That  he  looked  for  a?ty  interest  was  his  chief 
offence,  as  the  taking  of  interest,  in  addition  to  wages 


150  SOCIALISM  NEW  AND   OLD. 

for  his  labour,  is  the  unpardonable  thing  in  his  repre- 
sentative of  to-day. 

If  interest  is  to  be  successfully  attacked  on  the 
score  of  its  being  immoral,  it  must  be  on  one  of  two 
grounds — either  because  the  principal  was  come  by  in 
questionable  ways,  or  because  the  continued  payment 
of  interest  necessarily  leads  to  great  social  injustices 
and  evils,  which  could  be  removed  by  its  abolition 
without  producing  greater  evils.  Now,  as  to  the  first 
proposition,  it  is  doubtless  true  that  a  portion  of 
the  present  accumulation  of  capital  in  individual 
hands  did  come  originally  from  doubtful  sources, 
morally  viewed  ;  but  as  it  would  be  impossible  to 
separate  the  part  morally  suspected  from  that  fairly 
acquired — as,  moreover,  no  law  was  broken  in  its 
acquisition — the  present  possessors  ought  not  to  be 
disturbed  in  its  enjoyment.  Long  possession  purifies 
titles  on  many  grounds,  and  especially  the  title  to 
capital.  But  while  there  should  be  indemnity  as 
regards  the  past,  that  is  no  reason  why  the  v/ays  to 
wealth  should  not  be  more  legally  fenced  in  in  future, 
especially  as  regards  the  operations  of  speculators, 
*'  promoters,"  and  cornerers  ;  as  well  as  regards  the 
possible  unscrupulousness  of  employers. 

As  to  the  second  proposition,  that  the  payment  of 
interest  in  one  or  other  form  is  the  chief  cause  of 
social  evils  and  injustices,  which  could  be  removed 
by  its  abolition — this  is  indeed  held  by  all  the  new 
Socialists.  But  as  its  abolition  is  only  a  part  of  the 
whole  scheme  of  collectivism,  and  is  not  advocated 
by  Socialists,  save  as  part  of  the  whole,  it  will  be 
necessary  first  to  consider  that  scheme  together  with 


THE   NEW   SOCIALISM  AND   ITS  ARGUMENT.      15I 

its  advantages  and  drawbacks  before  we  can  pro- 
nounce decisively  whether  interest,  which  next  to 
inheritance  is  undoubtedly  the  chief  cause  of  the 
modern  inequality  of  wealth,  is  also  good  on  the 
whole,  and  good  for  the  greatest  number. 


152  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND  OLD, 


CHAPTER  V. 

IN  THE  SOCIALIST  STATE. 

I. 

So  far  we  have  only  had  Marx's  argument  to  prove 
that  capitalism  as  a  system  is  robbery  and  spoliation  : 
an  argument  which,  as  we  have  just  seen,  is  less  solid 
than  the  new  Socialists  suppose.  There  is  no  positive 
and  constructive  scheme  in  Marx's  writings;  but 
collectivism  is  undoubtedly  suggested,'  that  is,  the 
collective  ownership  of  land  and  capital  as  the  means 
of  production,  together  with  a  distribution  of  products 
amongst  all  workers,  productive  or  unproductive, 
according  to  the  quantity  of  the  work  done,  which  is 
to  be  measured  by  the  hours  of  labour  bestowed  on  it, 
skilled  labour  being  rated  as  a  certain  multiple  of 
average  or  common  labour. 

Collectivism  is  merely  suggested  by  Marx  as  the 
future  governing  principle  ;  it  is  not  worked  out  into 
detailed  application,  so  as  to  present  us  with  a  positive, 
connected,  and  practicable  scheme.  As  in  the  case 
of  the  somewhat  resembling  though  vaguer  scheme 
of  St.  Simon,  it  was  the  school  that  elaborated  the 
scheme,  so  it  has  been  rather  the  disciples  of  Karl 

*  In  particular,  "  Capital,"  vol.  ii.  p.  789  (Eng.  trans.). 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  153 

Marx  than  the  master  who  have  developed  collec- 
tivism— so  far  as  it  has  yet  been  developed  into  a 
system. 

It  must  be  confessed  that  its  development  has  not 
proceeded  far  :  possibly  in  part,  as  Schaeffle  suggests, 
from  prudence  on  the  part  of  coUectivist  leaders,  lest 
they  might  aftord  a  handle  to  the  objector  ;  partly  it 
maybe  from  defect  of  constructive  genius  and  imagina- 
tion, which  would  be  more  tasked  to-day  in  our  more 
complex  life  than  when  Sir  Thomas  More  drew  up 
his  ingenious  work  :  and  partly  it  may  even  be,  as  M. 
Leroy-Beaulieu  affirms^  because  of  the  inherent  im- 
practicabilities and  ineradicable  contradictions  of  the 
scheme.*  Whatever  the  cause,  certain  it  is  that  no 
connected  and  well-thought-out  presentment  of  the 
scheme  as  a  whole,  with  a  due  forecast,  adequate 
weighing,  and  satisfactory  answering,  of  objections, 
has  been  given  to  the  world  by  Socialist  writers  of 
authority,  if  we  may  except  the  short  but  masterly 
sketch  entitled,  "The  Quintessence  of  Socialism/' 
by  Dr.  Schaeffle,  who,  however,  is  not  so  much  a 
Socialist  as  an  impartial  critic  alike  of  the  new 
Socialism  and  of  the  existing  system.^ 

In  this  absence  of  full  exposition  we  must  content 
ourselves  with  taking  up  the  central  and  main  prin- 
ciple, and  considering  what  it  logically  and  necessarily 

»  "  Le  Collectivisme." 

•  There  is  also  Mr.  Gronlund's  "  Co-operative  Conimon- 
wcaUh,"  in  which  while  the  constructive  part  is  greatly  wantinj? 
on  the  economical  side,  neither  his  exposition  of  the  political 
side  of  collectivism  nor  yet  his  too  easy  refutation  of  objections 
is  quite  satisfactory. 


154  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

implies  ;  we  may  also  take  the  points  in  provisional 
programmes  in  which  the  collectivists  seem  agreed, 
and  those  points  in  the  existing  system  which  they 
have  mainly  attacked.  By  all  these  means,  especially 
by  the  first,  we  may  get  a  more  magnified  if  not 
a  more  detailed  picture  of  collectivism.  We  can  see 
as  in  a  panorama  the  whole  of  it,  what  the  parent 
idea  in  its  integrity  involves,  apart,  of  course,  from 
the  qualifications  or  reservations  of  particular 
advocates. 

The  State,  then,  or  the  community  in  general,  is  to  be 
the  collective  owner  of  the  land  and  of  all  the  instru- 
ments of  production  and  of  transport ;  by  instruments 
meaning  all  things  requisite,  other  than  land,  to  pro- 
duce and  to  circulate  commodities — what  economists 
call  fixed  capital — all  factories,  workshops,  ware- 
houses, machinery,  plant,  appliances,  railways'  rolling- 
stock,  ships,  &c.  The  State  is  to  own  the  land  and 
the  fixed  capital — or  to  express  both  conveniently  in 
a  single  phrase,  the  means  of  production,  production 
according  to  economic  usage  being  supposed  to  include 
the  distribution  or  circulation  of  products. 

Products  in  their  final  shape,  in  which  they  are 
directly  consumable,  the  State  will  not  own.  These 
it  will  only  keep  in  its  care,  in  public  warehouses  or 
magazines  or  stores,  until  the  workers  of  all  kinds 
send  in  their  claims  on  them,  which  claims  will  be 
measured  by  the  number  of  hours  for  which  they 
have  worked,  and  for  which  they  will  have  received 
certificates  or  labour  cheques  or  orders  to  be  pre- 
sented against  goods  in  their  final  consumable  form 
as  distinct  from  those  intermediate  stages  in  which 


IN  THE  SOCIALIST   STATE.  1 55 

they   would   be   of  no    use    to    the   holders    under 
collectivism. 

The  State  will  possess  the  fixed  capital,  or.  more 
correctly,  the  instruments  of  further  production  ;  of 
what  is  now  called  circulating  capital  the  State  can 
only  be  considered  as  owner  of  those  materials  not 
directly  consumable  by  individuals,  because  not 
directly  satisfyincf  any  material  want :  it  Avill  not  be 
owner,  as  M.  de  Laveleye  suggests/  of  that  portion  of 
circulating  capital  ^  now  paid  as  wages,  because  under 
collectivism  that  portion  will  become  the  property  of 
the  labourers  without  being  in  any  sense  advanced 
even  temporarily  to  them.  It  is  a  result  of  their 
labour  aided  by  the  instruments,  and  the  State  will 
only  have  charge  of  it,  will  only  possess  it  until  the 
labour  cheques  on  it  are  presented. 

The  actual  work  of  production  and  distribution  is 
to  be  carried  on  as  at  present,  namely  by  large 
groups  or  co-operatively,  but  the  directing  head  is 
no  longer  to  be  the  private  capitalist  employer.  He 
is  to  be  a  functionary,  a  paid  official  of  the  State, 
producing  under  superior  direction  and  not  according 
to  his  own  judgment  ;  with  less  risk  than  at  present, 
but  also  with  much  less  chance  of  making  a  fortune. 
It  is  possible,  and  Scha.-ffle  thinks  it  desirable,  that 

*  "The  Socialism  of  To-day,"  p.  244. 

*  The  term  "circulating  capital"  would  not  be  very  appropriate 
under  collectivism,  though  at  present,  contemplated  from  the 
capitalist  and  money  point  of  view,  it  has  significance.  The 
money  which  is  paid  for  work  and  materials,  in  wages  and  cost 
of  materials,  comes  back,  is  replaced  with  profit,  and  the  process 
goes  on  indefinitely.  But  under  collectivism  there  woudl  be 
no  money. 


156  SOCTAIJSM   NEW  AND  OLD. 

extra  merit  should  be  more  highly  remunerated,  but 
the  salaries  it  is  understood  will  be  very  modest 
indeed  as  compared  with  those  of  the  successful  men 
in  business  now.  How  the  manager  or  leader  of 
industry  is  to  be  selected,  whether  by  the  suffrages 
of  the  workers  or  by  the  State, — and  in  the  latter 
case  whether  through  the  secretaries  or  chiefs  of  the 
Industrial  Departments,  or  in  the  way  it  now  selects 
officials  for  the  existing  branches  of  the  public  service 
— is  a  point  on  v/hich  collectivism  does  not  seem  to 
have  made  up  its  mind/  though  its  principle,  being 
democratic,  leans  to  the  former  method. 

In  agriculture  as  well  as  in  all  other  industries  the 
work  is  to  be  carried  on  on  coUectivist  principles,  but 
according  to  Schaeffle,  the  time  is  not  ripe  for  this  in 
the  rural  districts  in  Germany,  though  according  to 
Mr.  Gronlund  the  time  is  ready  in  England,  and 
soon  will  be  in  America,  where  he  thinks  the  great 
bonanza  farms  prove  the  greater  economy  of  labour, 
or  the  greater  product  to  a  given  amount  of  labour 
when  farming  is  carried  on  on  the  large  scale.  His 
faith  is  great  when  we  consider  that  peasant  pro- 
prietors exist  over  a  large  part  of  the  civilized  world, 

*  According  to  Mr.  Gronlund,  in  the  co-operative  com- 
monwealth all  promotion  should  come  from  the  vote  of  the 
workers  immediately  beneath  ;  the  workers  choosing  the  fore- 
men, and  these  again  the  manager ;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  manager  could  not,  in  the  interests  of  obedience  and  disci- 
pline, be  removable  save  by  his  superior.  Mill  also  thought 
that  the  managers  in  future  should  be  elected  by  the  workers  ; 
but  Mill  was  only  thinking  of  co-operative  production,  where 
the  group  that  owns  the  capital  would  naturally  have  the 
election  of  the  manager. 


IN  THE  SOCIALIST   STATE.  157 

both  in  Europe  and  America,  and  that  the  present 
tendency  in  the  United  Kingdom  is  to  increase  the 
number  of  such  by  legislation.  Moreover  these 
classes,  as  well  as  small  farmers  in  general,  whether 
proprietors  or  tenants,  are  generally  the  most  con- 
servative in  customs  and  sentiment,  so  that  although 
they  have  no  objection  to  a  collective  or  State  owner- 
ship, which  would  practically  mean  individual  owner- 
ship by  the  present  occupiers,  with  liability  to  a  tax, 
it  would  take  a  very  long  time  to  turn  so  conserva- 
tive and  so  scattered  a  body  into  true  collectivist- 
socialists. 

So  far  we  have  only  been  concerned  with  what 
political  economists  call  productive  labour,  or  the 
labour  that  results  in  material  things,  whether  directly 
consumable,  as  food,  clothes,  houses,  fuel,  light,  furni- 
ture, etc.,  or  the  materials  of  these  in  any  of  their 
previous  stages  ;  under  production  being  included  by 
the  Socialists  the  very  considerable  labour  of  trans- 
port, as  well  as  the  connected  labour  of  distribution, 
— the  labour  of  the  carrier  by  railway,  road,  or  water- 
way, and  the  labour  of  the  dealer  who  gathers  com- 
modities to  sell  again  at  a  profit ;  all  which  labour  is 
in  future  to  be  done  on  collectivist  principles,  the 
private  undertaker  and  his  profits  alike  having 
disappeared. 

But  there  is  still  much  labour  in  the  world  that  is 
important  and  indispensable,  though  not  productive 
in  the  economic  sense.  There  is  all  the  labour  that 
consists  in  rendering  services  where  no  material  thing 
results  or  is  worked  into  more  desirable  form.  There 
is  the  labour — often  absolutely  necessary — tliat  con- 

10 


158  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

sists  in  doing  some  services  that  some  one  requires 
the  labour  of  the  physician,  the  schoolmaster,  the  pro- 
fessor, the  magistrate,  the  policeman,  the  soldier,  the 
domestic  servant,  or,  as  he  or  she  will  be  called  in 
the  socialist  community,  the  domestic  help,  not  to 
speak  of  the  labour  that  merely  ministers  to  amuse- 
ment, such  as  that  of  the  actor^  the  public  singer,  or  the 
dancer.  There  is,  too,  the  higher  labour  of  the  man 
of  letters,  of  the  artist,  of  the  man  of  science,  so  far 
as  he  is  an  original  investigator.  There  is  the  labour 
of  the  civil  as  well  as  of  the  military  service.  How 
is  all  this  labour  to  be  organized  under  collectivism, 
and  particularly  how  is  it  to  be  paid  comparatively 
with  productive  labour  ?  As  to  some  of  it,  there 
is  no  question  as  respects  organization,  as  it  is 
already  carried  on  by  co-operation  or  association 
of  efforts,  and  is  paid  by  the  State.  Such  is  the  case 
with  the  work  of  the  soldier,  of  the  sailor  of  the 
royal  navy,  and  in  a  less  perfect  degree  with  the 
labour  of  the  civil  service  in  general.  But  there 
is  labour  that  cannot  be  carried  on  by  association 
or  collective  effort ;  the  labour  of  the  medical  man, 
of  the  lawyer,  of  the  literary  man,  of  the  artist,  etc. 
These  forms  of  labour,  as  we  shall  see  more  fully  later 
on,  cannot  be  organized  collectively,  but  on  the  strict 
and  central  principle  of  collectivism,  they  should  be 
regulated,  rated  at  their  proper  value,  and  paid  by  the 
State.  All  kinds  of  workers  are  to  be  State  func- 
tionaries, and  paid  by  the  State.  There  will  be  no 
private  enterprise,  because  if  any  were  allowed,  more 
would  probably  come,  and  inequality  of  wealth  would 
return   from   that   side.     A  man   will   no  longer  be 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  1 59 

permitted,  even  if  he  had  the  means  or  capital,  to 
open  an  educational  establishment,  start  a  journal, 
undertake  any  private  business  on  his  own  account, 
because  the  fields  of  education,  journalism,  and  of  all 
business  are  to  be  occupied  by  the  State,  and  no 
chance  will  be  allowed  to  any  private  competition. 

All  industries  are  to  be  controlled  and  directed  by 
the  State  as  in  the  St.  Simonian  scheme,  from  which 
collectivism  differs  only  in  not  suppressing  inherit- 
ance, and  by  its  democratic  character  as  viewed  from 
the  political  side.  Collectivism  docs  not  think  it 
necessary  to  suppress  inheritance  ;  as  under  it  there 
would  be  so  comparatively  little  left  to  inherit,  it 
assumes  that  there  would  be  no  fear  of  a  return  of  the 
great  inequality  of  the  old  system  from  that  side. 
And  it  permits  private  property  in  consumable  goods 
and  in  things  quce  non  constuminttLr  itstc,  such  as 
pictures,  jewellery,  houses,  which  maybe  bequeathed, 
but  it  so  far  restricts  the  right  of  property  that  no  one 
will  be  allowed  to  make  an  income  out  of  property 
without  work.  There  must  be  no  lending  at  interest, 
or  advancing  goods  on  credit  to  be  repaid  with  interest, 
no  letting  of  articles  for  hire,  no  leasing  for  rent,  no 
private  setting  others  at  work  with  a  view  to  make 
a  profit  out  of  their  labour,  though  apart  from  this 
case,  there  docs  not  seem  to  be  any  objection  to 
asking  another  to  do  a  service  in  return  for  an 
agrced-on  payment. 

As  to  distribution,  each  will  receive  in  proportion 
to  the  amount  and  kind  of  his  work  :  the  amount  to 
be  measured  in  time,  by  the  number  of  hours  of 
work   of   "average   labour,"    skilled    labour   to  rate 


l6o  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

at  SO  many  times  average  labour ;  the  value  of  un- 
productive labour,  where  of  ordinary  kind,  as  that 
of  the  policeman,  to  be  measured  by  hours  of  work, 
where  it  is  of  a  superior  kind,  as  the  labour  of  the 
magistrate  or  physician,  to  be  determined  arbitrarily 
by  the  Government,  or  perhaps  in  the  case  of  the 
physician,  partly,  as  now,  by  what  the  public  will 
pay  for  it/ 

There  will  be  no  market  in  the  Socialist  kingdom, 
and  no  money.  Markets  and  market  prices  are  now 
useful  to  adjust  supply  and  demand  ;  this  will  be 
unnecessary  under  collectivism,  because  the  State 
will  do  it  through  labour  bureaus  and  statistics.  At 
present  markets  afford  the  grand  chances  to  the 
speculator  and  the  cornerer,  who  can  act  on  prices  for 
their  own  profit  but  to  the  detriment  of  the  public. 
The  speculator  and  the  cornerer,  the  engrosser 
{accapareiir)  of  former  times,  will  for  the  first  time 
receive  his  effectual  quietus,  it  is  confidently  believed, 
with  the  suppression  of  the  market. 

Even  more  important  is  the  suppression  of  money, 
of  gold,  silver,  and  their  representatives, — bank-notes, 
bills  of  exchange,  etc.  It  is  easy  to  some  to  accumu- 
late money,  and  thence  would  come  back  inequalities  ; 
it  is  not  so  easy  to  accumulate  consumable  goods. 
Money  is  now  chiefly  needed  as  a  general  medium  of 
exchange  ;  something  with  which  you  can  buy  any- 
thing, something  for  which  you  can  sell  anything.  It 
is  mainly  a  convenient  means  of  getting  something 
you  want  for  something  you  have  to  give,  whether 
product  or  service.  In  the  Socialist  State  you  will  get 
"t  Schasffle's  "  Quintessence  of  Socialism,"  p.  50. 


IN  THE  SOCIALIST  STATE.  l6l 

for  your  work  or  your  special  services  the  desired 
things  without  the  instrumentahty  of  gold  or  silver 
or  notes,  simply  by  presenting  your  labour  cheques 
at  the  State  stores,  or  in  some  cases  for  your  services 
you  will  get  labour  cheques  directly  from  the  purchaser. 
The  only  thing  resembling  money  will  be  the  labour 
cheque. 

With  money  will  go  all  private  bankers  and  bill  dis- 
counters, who  now  fulfil  a  useful  function  in  lending 
at  interest  to  borrov/ers,  productive  or  unproductive, 
and  in  adapting  supply  of  money  to  demand  by  alter- 
insr  the  market  rate  of  interest,  but  who  w^ould  be 
unnecessary  if  there  was  no  money,  and  who,  by  the 
power  of  extending  or  contracting  their  cred't,  have 
great  power  to  encourage  speculation,  which  some- 
times ends  in  loss  and  ruin  and  crises,  which  would 
be  impossible  in  the  Socialist  State. 

As  the  State  will  undertake  all  industry,  and  will 
save  the  necessary  collective  capital,  there  will  be  no 
private  investments.  There  will  be  no  investment  of 
money  (or  of  labour  cheques)  at  interest  in  companies' 
shares.  There  will  be  no  borrowing  by  Government  at 
interest.  There  will  be  no  stock  or  share  market  any 
more  than  money  market  or  produce  market ;  no 
quotations  ;  no  buying  or  selling,  real  or  fictitious. 
The  old  familiar  social  types,  the  banker,  the  stock- 
broker, and  the  comparatively  new  one,  the  financier, 
the  company  promoter,  the  speculator  on  the  Stock 
Exchange,  will  disappear,  as  well  as  the  much  larger 
class  who  live  on  the  interest  or  dividends  of  their 
investments. 


l62  SOCIALISM  NEW  AND  OLD. 


II. 

Such  is  the  general  outline  of  the  scheme,  to  which 
it  is  easy  to  see  many  objections  ;  and  the  first  is 
that  nothing  could  be  produced  either  in  the  sphere  of 
material  or  intellectual  production  unless  what  pleased 
the  chiefs  or  heads  of  the  departments  of  production. 
If  by  chance  you  and  others  should  wish  for  things 
that  have  not  been  produced,  you  cannot  have  them 
unless  you  can  persuade  the  directors,  because  the 
State  will  possess  and  control  all  the  instruments  of 
production.  At  present  it  is  demand  which  deter- 
mines what  shall  be  produced,  and  every  conceivable 
demand  is  catered  for.  Under  collectivism  production 
will  determine  demand  ;  at  least  demand  will  have  to 
accommodate  itself  to  production.  If  you  would  like 
a  superior  copy  of  a  book,  an  engraving  of  a  painting, 
a  particular  kind  of  furniture,  a  fabric  for  dress,  you 
cannot  have  them  under  collectivism  unless  the 
directors  in  their  wisdom  have  decided  to  produce 
such  things,  as  most  probably,  the  State  being  demo- 
cratic as  well  as  socialistic  in  constitution,  it  will  not. 
There  will  be  a  great  levelling  down  as  well  as  a  small 
levelling  up  in  the  quality  of  the  things  produced, 
while  in  variety  there  will  be  a  great  reduction,  as  all 
the  rarer  luxuries  and  choicer  fabrics,  such  as  now 
render  attractive  the  brilliant  shop  windows  in  Regent 
Street  or  the  Rue  de  Rivoli,  will  disappear. 

By  this  power  of  producing  only  what  pleased  them 
the  directors  of  production  would  very  considerably 
affect  our  lives.  The  food  we  should  eat,  the  clothes 
we  should  wear,  the  furniture  of  our  dwellings,  would 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  1 63 

within  limits  not  too  wide  be  prescribed.  To  which 
the  SociaHsts  say  in  reply  :  that  it  is  absolutely 
necessary  that  the  State  should  be  sole  producer  to 
escape  from  the  evils  of  the  present  system.  Moreover, 
the  State  would  produce  things  in  general  request. 
It  would  first  produce  an  ample  supply  of  good  and 
unadulterated  necessaries ;  after  the  necessaries  it 
would  only  produce  luxuries  that  were  in  general 
demand,  and  vvhich  did  not  take  too  much  labour 
— that  is  too  much  time — to  produce  ;  because 
Socialists  consider  leisure  itself  as  a  luxury,  and  in 
the  Socialist  State  it  would  not  be  desirable  nor  pos- 
sible to  force  any  one  to  labour  beyond  the  time 
necessary  for  his  own  support.  It  is,  they  say,  because 
there  are  now  so  many  luxuries  produced  that  men 
and  women  have  to  labour  so  long.  In  the  Socialist 
State  men  would  not  give  up  their  leisure  for  things 
that  merely  gratify  the  eye  for  a  moment,  or  which 
minister  to  egregious  vanity  or  love  of  ostentation. 
The  needs  of  the  generaHty  would  have  to  be  con- 
sidered, and  rare  or  costly  things  could  not  be  pro- 
duced for  superfine  people,  who,  moreover,  would  be 
scarce  in  the  Socialist  community.  There  would,  in 
fact,  be  no  one  to  purchase  rare  luxuries  if  they  were 
produced,  as  few  people  will  have  large  salaries, 
though  there  will  not  be  equality.*  But  though  luxu- 
ries that  could  be  monopolized  would  be  restricted, 
what  may  be  called  public  luxuries  and  sources  of 
common   enjoyment,   whether    art   galleries,   public 

•  It  is  really  a  doubtful  point  ;  but  it  is  best  to  make  the  more 
reasonable  supposition  with  Schaeflle,  that  a  certain  degree  of 
inequality  will  exist. 


1 64  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

buildings,  theatres,  parks,  promenades,  &c.,  would, 
the  Socialists  assure  us,  be  on  a  scale  of  unequalled 
splendour. 

The  collectivists  are  less  satisfactory  in  replying  to 
the  objection  relating  to  the  production  of  immaterial 
things.  The  State  could  print  or  suppress  what  books 
it  pleased,  as  it  will  control  all  the  printing-presses 
and  pa}'-  the  printers.  According  to  M.  Leroy  Beau- 
lieu,  there  is  here  the  basis  for  a  spiritual  despotism 
such  as  the  world  has  never  seen,  and  going  far  beyond 
the  Inquisition.  The  "liberty  of  unlicensed  printing  " 
for  which  Milton  pleaded  would  be  completely  gone, 
and  it  would  depend  on  the  composition  of  the 
Government  for  the  time  being  what  new  books 
would  be  permitted  to  appear,  as  well  as  what  old 
ones  would  be  reproduced.  Fanatics  in  power  would 
suppress  all  works  that  they  thought  dangerous  to 
their  views.  What  guarantee  can  the  collectivists 
give  us  against  so  great  a  danger  .-'  for  great  it  would 
be  ;  while  the  thing  itself,  a  practical  suppression  of 
free  thought  and  speech  by  the  suppression  of  its 
spiritual  nutriment,  would  be  wholly  intolerable  so 
long  as  man  does  not  live  by  bread  only,  and  yet 
there  seems  no  answer  to  the  objection  save  by  letting 
every  one  print  at  the  State  press  what  he  pleases, 
provided  its  expenses  are  guaranteed  :  in  other  words, 
by  withdrawing  from  the  State  the  exclusive  control 
of  the  press  and  the  decision  of  what  it  will  and  will 
not  print.  And  the  same  considerations  apply  to 
the  journals  and  magazines  as  to  books.  They  will 
have  to  be  organs,  not  of  the  State,  but  of  parties  in 
the  State  having  different  aims  and  ideas,  religious, 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  16$ 

political,  even  social,  as  now.  The  Socialist  State, 
indeed,  could  hardly  be  expected  to  lend  the  State 
presses  to  social  sectarians  to  print  and  advocate 
doctrines  subversive  of  the  fundamental  principles  of 
the  State,  and  to  urge  a  return  to  the  old  order  of 
individualism  :  and  if,  distrusting  its  inherent  strength, 
it  did  not  do  so,  liberty  of  thought  and  speech  would 
be  so  far  invaded. 

The  next  objection  is  of  an  economic  kind,  and 
refers  to  the  quantity  and  quality  of  the  production. 
It  is  urged  that  the  great  stimulus  to  the  private 
interest  of  the  industrial  chief  being  withdrawn,  the 
generality  would  have  no  greater  share  than  before 
of  necessaries  or  comforts,  even  though  no  costly 
luxuries  were  produced :  because  the  private  capitalist 
and  the  present  source  of  initiative  will  be  replaced 
by  a  manager,  who  will  have  far  less  interest  in  the 
result,  while  the  workers  themselves  will  be  disposed 
to  take  things  easy,  work  in  itself  not  being  pleasant 
(as  political  economy  postulates),  and  no  one  fearing 
dismissal  under  a  socialistic  regime.  The  chief,  on 
whom  so  much  depends,  would  have  far  less  interest 
than  now  to  increase  the  product  by  his  supervision, 
by  search  for  improved  processes,  or  new  inven- 
tions ;  while  the  men  of  inventive  genius,  the  Watts, 
Hargreaves,  and  Bessemers,  would  find  it  far  more 
difficult  to  get  their  new  ideas  applied  in  practice,  the 
State  being  hitherto  very  timid  and  unenterprising 
in  running  risks.  The  heads  would  be  languid,  the 
general  workers  not  too  assiduous,  and  the  State 
timid,  from  all  which  there  would  result  a  diminished 
rate  of  progress,  decreased  production  of  wealth,  with 


1 66  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

finally,  in  all  probability,  a  diffused  poverty,  which 
besides  being  an  evil  in  itself  is  one  that  threatens  all 
the  higher  human  interests. 

And  to  this  objection  or  doubt  I  think  great  weight 
is  to  be  attached.  And  there  is  ground  to  fear  that 
under  Collectivism,  so  far  as  it  has  been  unfolded,  this 
result  would  happen,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that,  the  labour 
that  now  produces  many  useless  luxuries  would 
be  available  for  useful  things.  Unless  not  merely 
the  generality — the  hands — but  the  heads  were  en- 
couraged, there  would  be  grounds  of  apprehension  on 
this  side,  and  the  objection  could  only  be  got  over  by 
paying  the  manager  on  a  far  more  liberal  scale  than 
collectivists  contemplate,  or  than  their  central  aim  at 
preventing  inequality  will  allow,  and  by  further  permit- 
ting the  production  of  such  things  as  the  heads  might 
desire,  for  there  would  be  no  use  in  higher  salaries 
unless  the  production  of  specially  desired  luxuries 
were  permitted.  Nothing  could  be  done  with  them, 
since  a  man's  capacity  of  consuming  necessaries  is 
strictly  limited,  as  Adam  Smith  says,  by  the  narrow 
capacity  of  his  stomach  ;  and  the  industrial  leader 
could  not  use  a  superfluous  stock  of  necessaries,  as 
the  feudal  chief  formerly  could,  to  extend  his  power 
by  feeding  retainers  to  fight  for  him.  It  is  not  clear 
from  collcctivist  programmes  whether  he  could  keep 
hired  servants  :  certainly  not  many,  as  such  would 
naturally  be  regarded  as  savouring  of  past  slavery. 
If  so,  and  if  the  well-paid  official  can  neither  have 
servants,  nor  a  fine  house,  nor  carriages  and  horses, 
nor  superior  wines,  what  use,  we  may  ask,  are  his 
additional    labour  cheques   or   orders   on    things   of 


IN  THE  SOCIALIST  STATE.  1 67 

which  he  has  a  surfeit  ?  Is  it  not,  then,  to  be  feared 
that  the  Captain  of  Industry  would  weary  in  well 
doing  ?  If  you  want  good  work  from  him,  you  must 
give  him  an  end  to  work  for,  a  motive  to  urge  him, 
such  as  will  indubitably  act  on  him.  At  present  he 
has  such  motive  in  his  expected  profits,  and  the  cer- 
tainty that  with  these  he  can  command  carriages, 
footmen,  choice  wines,  pictures,  deer-forests ;  legitimate 
objects  of  desire,  though  not  all  of  a  high  kind,  as  well 
as  more  doubtful  objects,  political  supremacy,  social 
homage,  etc.  Take  away  all  these  things,  reduce 
him  to  a  Spartan  simplicity  of  life,  and  expect  more 
than  Spartan  virtues  from  him,  that  he  will  work 
early  and  late,  be  engrossed  perpetually  with  a  busi- 
ness not  spcciallyhis,out  of  mere  benevolence  and  pub- 
lic spirit — is  it  not  supposing  him  a  being  quite  other 
than  he  is,  or  than  he  is  likely  to  become  for  centuries  ? 
The  many  average  workers  may  have  sufficient 
motive  ;  the  chiefs,  on  whom  together  with  inventors 
so  much  more  depends,  would  not  have  it,  and  unless 
they  are  liberally  paid,  and  can  demand  what  they 
please  with  their  wages,  that  is,  unless  Collectivism 
modifies  its  central  principle,  the  not  remote  results 
would  be  a  lack  of  heart  and  energy,  issuing  in  a 
general  poverty.  In  a  word,  impracticability  may  be 
writ  large  over  the  coliectivist  scheme  so  far  as  it 
would  largely  cut  down  the  salaries  of  superiors, 
discourage  inventors,  or  arbitrarily  dictate  production. 
The  failure  would  be  certain,  because  it  depends  on 
principles  of  human  nature  ignored  by  Socialists.  So 
surely  as  there  is  a  certain  permanency  in  human 
nature,  and  certain  well-established  general  egoistic 


1 68  SOCIALISM  NEW  AND  OLD. 

traits  in  man,  as  all  religions,  moral  science,  the  science 
of  psychology,  the  lessons  of  history,  and  our  own 
experience  testify,  so  surely  will  any  system  fail 
which  ignores  these  general  and  permanent  facts, 
and  which  supposes  man  other  than  he  is.  Egoism, 
self-interest,  is  the  deepest  and  most  central  thing  in 
man,  in  the  species,  and  egoism  in  its  coarser  and 
acquisitive  form  of  a  desire  for  material  goods,  is  the 
main  motive  for  action  with  the  generality.  If  this 
be  forgotten,  and  if  self-interest  is  not  allowed  a  field, 
the  scheme  that  attempts  to  restrain  it  by  rigid  laws 
would  fail.  Egoism  compressed  by  laws  would  take 
its  revenge,  would  find  a  way  to  subsist  in  spite  of 
the  most  rigid  laws  ;  it  would  first  elude  the  laws,  and 
at  last  it  would  break  them,  and  break  up  the  State 
along  with  them,  having  first  impoverished  it. 

The  conclusion  to  which  we  are  led,  then,  is  that 
unless  the  industrial  chiefs  are  remunerated  liberally, 
unless  there  be  a  gradation  of  salaries,  and  unless  there 
be  free  choice  of  products,  or  a  production  suited 
for  a  well-to-do  if  not  a  rich  class,  that  is,  unless 
the  departure  from  the  present  system  is  not  great, 
Socialism  would  not  work.  The  salaries  need  not 
under  Socialism  be  so  large  as  now,  as  there  would 
be  no  need  to  set  apart  a  portion  of  them  to  provide 
for  the  future  of  a  family,  since  the  family  would  be 
safe,  and  all  its  members  would  find  their  places  in 
the  Socialist  State  assured  in  proportion  to  their 
fitness. 

A  common  objection  to  Socialism  is  that  under  it 
the  supply  of  capital  to  create  new  instruments  of 
production  and  to  prevent  the  deterioration  of  the 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  169 

old  would  be  insufficient,  from  the  withdrawal  of  the 
present  potent  stimulus  to  saving  in  the  shape  of 
interest.  At  present,  in  all  societies  economically 
progressive,  like  England,  France,  Germany,  the 
United  States,  an  ample  supply  of  capital  is  provided 
by  the  private  savings  of  well-to-do  or  rich  people, 
who  expect  interest,  still  more  by  the  savings  of  the 
employing  capitalists,  who  expect  both  interest  and 
wages  of  management.  This  stimulus  is  at  present  very 
effective :  in  a  country  like  England  the  increase  of 
capital  each  year  is  very  great — the  doubt  is  whether 
there  would  be  an  equally  effective  stimulus  to  saving 
under  Collectivism. 

This  is  a  point  on  which  there  is  some  misconcep- 
tion, which  is  shared  even  by  writers  of  authority 
like  Professor  Cairnes,  who  affirms  that  under  a 
socialistic  regime  there  would  be  no  motives  to  keep 
up  capital  save  benevolence  and  public  spirit.  Under 
Collectivism  the  new  capital  required  would,  as 
Schaiffle  says,  take  the  form  of  a  tax  in  kind  or  a 
deduction  from  the  gross  produce.  A  certain  pro- 
portion of  the  consumable  products  would  "  be  reserved 
by  the  public  overseers  of  production,  partly  for 
keeping  up  the  supply  of  collective  capital  and  partly 
for  the  maintenance  of  other  not  immediately  pro- 
ductive but  generally  useful  institutions — in  fact  the 
public  departments  by  which  all  the  citizens  benefit." 
If  we  suppose  one-tenth  of  the  total  produce  to  be 
thus  set  aside  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  up  the  col- 
lective capital,  the  essence  of  the  matter  is  that  that 
proportion  is  consumed  by  the  workers  engaged  in 
maintaining,  increasing,  or  improving  the  instruments 


I/O  SOCIALISM  NEW  AND  OLD. 

of  production.  The  total  amount  of  consumable 
products  will,  on  the  one  hand,  be  less,  by  the  amount 
consumed  by  these  labourers,  than  if  they  had  been 
directly  engaged  in  production,  where  they  could 
have  produced  as  much  as  they  consumed  by  the  aid 
of  the  old  instruments  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
product  will  be  greater  in  future  by  the  more  efficient 
instruments  they  will  produce.  All  will  gain  by  this 
diversion  of  some  labour  from  direct  production  to 
the  making  of  superior  instruments,  which  ultimately 
increase  production.' 

Their  support  while  making  the  instruments  can 
hardly  be  regarded  as  a  tax  or  deduction,  because, 
while  they  consume  each  year  one -tenth  of  the  pro- 
duce, it  is  a  produce  constantly  increasing  by  their 
labour.  And  if  even  the  annual  increment  of  capital 
be  increased,  and  more  than  one-tenth  of  the  workers 
be  employed  repairing  or  creating  instruments,  there 
would  so  far  be  a  less  product  from  the  remaining 
diminished  workers,  but  a  greater  product  from  the 
constantly  improved  instruments.  The  essence  of  the 
matter  is  that  more  directly  consumable  products  arc 
every  year  given  to  those  who  are  not  directly  but 
indirectly  producing :  not  producing  consumable 
things,  but  superior  and  more  effective  means  of 
attaining  them. 

9  This  is  the  real  meaning  of  investing  capital.  It  is  not 
essentially  a  case  of  deferred  consumption,  as  some  represent 
it,  because  the  produce  set  aside  or  saved  is,  as  Mill  says,  con- 
sumed,  and  soon.  It  is  consumed  by  those  engaged  in  producing 
the  more  efficient  instruments,  but  the  result  of  the  immediate 
consumption  is  a  greater  production,  and  of  course  also  a 
greater  consumption  ultimately. 


IN  THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  I7I 

The  production  of  superior  instruments  would  thus 
be  the  obvious  interest  of  the  community.  We  can 
see  this  if  there  were  only  ten  men  starting  to  labour 
in  common  on  isolated  land.  The  advantages  to  all  of 
fixed  capital  would  have  been  obvious  had  there  been 
five  men  on  Crusoe's  island.  And  here  we  can  see 
the  error  of  Professor  Cairnes,  before  referred  to,  that 
under  Socialism  there  would  be  no  motives  for  saving 
except  benevolence  and  public  spirit.  Saving  under 
Socialism  would  take  the  form  of  sending  more 
labourers  to  make  instruments,  and  of  submitting  to 
an  immediate  deduction  of  products  for  their  greater 
ultimate  increase.  The  motives  of  self-interest  are 
not  done  away  with,  as  Cairnes  supposes.  Fixed 
capital  is  really  an  investment  of  the  general  public 
labour  which  is  eminently  productive  and  profitable, 
which  is  restored  with  an  additional  yield,  only  that 
under  Socialism  every  one  would  have  a  share  in  the 
additional  yield,  instead  of,  as  now,  only  a  class. 
Whether  investments  of  labour  in  this  form  would, 
under  Collectivism,  be  as  extensive  or  effective  as 
now,  may  be  questioned.  But  if  on  the  one  hand  new 
fields  of  investment  would  probably  be  less  eagerly 
sought  for,  imaginary  and  illusory  ones  would  cer- 
tainly be  less  tried  than  now,  and  there  would  be  less 
waste  of  capital  from  this  cause  or  from  miscalculation 
or  accident. 

There  certainly  would  be  no  capital  obtained  from 
private  savings,  and  private  savings  form  a  most 
potent  source  of  capital  now.  No  interest  could  be 
got  for  the  loan  of  such,  and  private  savings,  if  any, 
would   take  a  different  form  ;  that  of  investment  in 


172  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

things  at  once  durable  and  desirable ;  possibly  in 
making  a  provision  for  old  age  ;  but  in  no  case  would 
the  saving  be  of  a  kind  to  increase  the  future  produc- 
tion, as  it  is  at  present. 


III. 

But  the  commonest  of  all  objections  to  Socialism 
is  that  liberty  would  be  in  danger ;  hberty  which,  as 
Mill  says,  is,  next  to  food  and  drink,  the  most  craving 
want,  and,  unlike  these,  a  want  which  increases  with 
all  real  improvement.  It  is  also  the  chief  objection 
of  Herbert  Spencer.  In  his  book  entitled  "  Man 
versus  the  State  "  he  speaks  of  "  the  coming  slavery" 
foreshadowed  in  certain  measures  of  a  socialistic  ten- 
dency, and  justifies  the  words  on  the  ground  that  "  all 
Socialism  implies  slavery."  This  is  an  important 
point ;  it  is  also  a  difficult  one,  owing  to  the  various 
meanings  of  the  words  liberty  and  freedom,  and  on 
both  grounds  it  requires  a  careful  consideration. 

Mill,  using  the  word  in  the  wide  sense  of  liberty  of 
thought,  of  conduct,  of  uncontrolled  development  of 
one's  own  individuality  in  all  directions,  for  which  he 
pleads  so  powerfully  in  his  treatise  on  "  Liberty,"  is 
evidently  in  doubt  as  to  the  general  weight  of  the 
objection.  He  thinks  there  is  some  weight  in  it, 
and  that  the  future  will  lie  with  whichever  of  the 
two  systems,  Socialism  or  Individualism,  can  afford 
most  space  to  liberty  in  general.  He  thinks,  however, 
that  the  objection  as  to  the  restrictions  of  Socialism  is 
**  vastly  exaggerated  ;  "  that  members  of  the  associa- 
tions "  need  not  be  required  to  live   together  more 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  1/3 

than  they  do  now,  nor  need  they  be  controlled  in  the 
disposal  of  their  individual  share  of  the  produce,  nor 
yet  in  the  disposal  of  the  large  leisure  they  would 
probably  possess.  Individuals  need  not  be  chained 
to  an  occupation  or  to  a  particular  locality."  But 
whatever  the  weight  of  the  objection  in  this  direction, 
it  applies,  he  thinks,  with  far  greater  force  to  the 
present  system,  under  which  the  majority  of  labourers 
enjoy  no  real  liberty,  "  have  as  little  choice  of  occu- 
pation or  freedom  of  locomotion,  are  practically  as 
dependent  on  fixed  rules  and  on  the  will  of  others  as 
they  could  be  in  any  system  short  of  actual  slavery." 
But  indeed  we  might  go  farther  than  Mill  and  ask 
how  many  at  present  have  full  liberty  of  this  sort, 
liberty  to  come  and  go^  to  work  or  idle,  except  the 
fortunate  few,  the  rich,  or  the  people  with  sinecures, 
or  at  least  with  very  long  vacations.  The  professional 
man  has  little  of  this  sort  of  liberty,  and  would  be 
sorry  if  he  had — liberty  and  leisure  meaning  in  his 
case  smaller  fees  and  greater  anxiety,  slavery  mean- 
ing inflowing  guineas  and  pleasure  from  work  and  its 
reward,  the  greatest  he  could  enjoy.  Omitting  the 
rich,  those  who  enjoy  much  of  this  kind  of  liberty 
now  arc  the  unsuccessful  men,  or  the  men  only  half 
employed  who  earn  only  half-incomes,  and  who 
would  gladly  get  rid  of  it  to  fall  into  a  constant 
money-making  groove.  In  fact,  this  "unchartered 
freedom,"  as  Wordsworth  calls  it,  may  easily  prove  a 
curse  to  its  possessor,  and  in  the  majority  of  cases 
produces  more  misery  than  satisfaction.  Under 
Socialism  the  man  of  superior  ability  who  worked  his 
way  to  the  best  position  and  then  had  not  too  long 


174  SOCIALISM  NEW  AND  OLD. 

working  hours  would  have  more  leisure,  and  probably 
more  relish  for  it,  than  the  corresponding  type  of  man 
to-day,  often  over-worked.  There  is  probably  greater 
task  slavery  now  than  there  would  be  under  Socialism, 
because  under  it  a  man  would  have  his  own  future  and 
that  of  his  family  assured  without  saving  or  paying  an 
insurance  premium.  Indeed  the  danger  of  Socialism 
is,  as  we  elsewhere  note,  rather  in  the  opposite  direc- 
tion ;  that  far  from  being  a  slave  to  his  task,  the 
Socialist  would  take  things  too  easily,  from  the  fact 
that  his  own  and  his  family's  future  is  sure,  or  at 
least  as  sure  as  that  of  the  whole  of  which  he  is  a 
unit. 

We  may  assume,  then,  that  under  a  Socialist  regime 
(in  its  most  reasonable  form)  a  man  would  not  be 
prevented  from  taking  an  autumn  tour  to  Switzer- 
land, or  going  to  the  seaside  for  his  holiday  (because 
there  would,  under  any  endurable  Socialism,  be  holi- 
days), provided  he  had  the  means  to  pay  for  the  ex- 
penses of  the  trip,  which  would  come  out  of  his  salary 
and  not  from  the  State,  unless  in  the  case  where  he 
travels  in  its  service ;  nor  would  an  ordinary  worker 
be  prevented  from  emigrating  to  America  if  he  pleased, 
though  a  Socialist  might  possibly  be  then  less  in- 
clined to  go  to  America  unless  Socialistic  institutions 
were  established  there  also.  There  would  be  no 
force  used  to  prevent  an  individual  from  going  to  a 
country  where  he  might  better  himself,  but  the  State 
would  not  in  general  feel  bound  to  pay  his  passage. 
That  he  would  have  to  do  for  himself  out  of  savings 
made  for  contingencies  of  the  kind  ;  though  it  is 
even    conceivable,   if  population    became    excessive 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  175 

from  any  cause,  that  the  State  might  organize 
emigration  to  relieve  its  own  condition. 

On  the  whole  we  may  say  that  under  Socialism  at 
its  best  there  would  not  be  more  slavery  than  now  ; 
and  the  supposed  diffused  and  universal  slavery 
would  in  practice  be  no  slavery,  its  very  universality 
reducing  it  to  nothing,  like  the  uniform  atmospheric 
pressure  of  so  many  pounds  to  the  square  inch  that 
we  are  all  unconscious  of :  as  it  would  be  every 
one's  interest  to  resist  and  minimize  the  slavery,  its 
shackles  would  fall  off  or  cease  to  be  felt  while  a 
species  of  real  slavery  that  would  cease  or  be  lessened 
would  be  that  of  the  present  over-tasked  and  under- 
paid operative,  male  and  female. 

It  is,  indeed,  objected  that,  the  State  being  sole 
producer,  the  leaders  and  directors  of  industry,  as 
well  as  all  its  higher  officials,  might  be  despotic  ;  that 
all  in  command  might  be  tyrannical  to  all  who  obey, 
and  that  the  liberty  of  the  latter  would  be  at  their 
rulers'  mercy,  without  the  hope  of  ever  being  able  to 
shake  them  from  their  shoulders,  save  by  a  change 
of  masters.  This  kind  of  slavery  for  the  working 
classes  in  general  and  for  all  who  have  to  obey  is 
perhaps  possible  in  some  measure.  But  some  in- 
dustries and  services  arc  at  present  under  State 
direction  without  its  being  found  an  intolerable 
despotism,  while,  as  before  stated,  for  the  majority 
of  labourers  the  necessity  of  their  position  places 
them  in  general  in  a  state  of  merely  mitigated 
slavery  at  present.  A  certain  degree  of  diminution 
of  liberty  for  the  generality  there  probably  would 
be    under    Socialism,   but    that   would    be   a    price 


176  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND  OLD. 

paid  for  greater  security,  and  for  the  greater  equaliz- 
ing of  opportunities.  They  have  now  at  least 
some  liberty  of  domicile  ;  they  may  move  from 
one  part  of  the  country  to  the  other  to  get  better 
wages,  or  for  any  other  reason.  They  may  even 
move  as  the  tramp,  vagabond  and  gipsy,  for  the 
mere  pleasure  of  moving  and  asserting  their  freedom. 
This  liberty  of  domicile  or  place  of  abode  would 
probably  be  greatly  contracted  under  Collectivism. 
M.  Leroy-Beaulieu  thinks  it  would  hardly  exist  at  all, 
because  the  State  would  be  the  sole  owner  of  all  the 
houses,  and  no  one  could  change  to  a  particular  place 
unless  the  authorities  allowed  him  a  house.  The 
objection  from  this  side  does  not  seem  insurmount- 
able, and  is  most  probably  exaggerated  ;  but  we  shall 
see  later  on,  from  another  side,  that  if  the  State  wished 
to  keep  the  values  of  things  steady,  it  would  have  to 
transfer  labour  arbitrarily  from  place  to  place. 

Liberty  of  demand  for  both  material  and  imma- 
terial things,  the  power  of  buying  the  things  we 
pleased,  would  be  narrowed,  and  liberty  of  thought 
and  speech  there  could  not  be  if  the  State  was  the 
sole  owner  of  the  printing  presses  and  director  of  the 
printer's  work.  As  to  the  former,  we  liave  seen  that 
the  choice  of  things  to  be  produced  would  still  have 
to  be  left  largely  to  the  consumer  ;  as  to  the  second, 
which  involves  the  whole  great  question  of  freedom  of 
thought  and  freedom  of  speech,  such  control  could  not 
for  a  moment  be  left  in  the  hands  of  any  power, 
temporal  or  spiritual.  The  State  could  be  left  to 
produce  bread  for  us,  but  not  to  produce  books, 
because  our  palates  for  spiritual  sustenance  differ  so 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  17/ 

much  ;  and  therefore  printing  and  pubh'shing  would 
have  to  remain  under  private  enterprise,  however 
regulated. 

Mill's  main  objection  alike  to  Communism  and  to 
Socialism  in  all  its  forms,  is  that  under  either  there 
would  be  no  asylum  left  for  individuality  of  character. 
He  fears  that  public  opinion  would  be  a  tyrannical 
yoke  ;  and  doubts  "  whether  the  absolute  dependence 
of  each  on  all  and  surveillance  of  each  by  all  would  not 
grind  all  down  into  a  tame  uniformity  of  thoughts, 
feelings,  and  actions."  This  he  thinks  is  a  glaring  evil 
at  present ;  the  question  is,  would  it  not  almost  certainly 
be  increased  under  Socialism,  when  all  would  receive 
the  same  general  education  and  be  subject  to  the  same 
common  influences.  We  should  all  thus  cast  in  the 
same  monotonous  moulds,  become  as  like  as  sheep 
in  a  flock.  No  more  variety  in  talent  and  taste, 
in  aspiration,  in  general  character.  The  present 
interesting  and  various  contact  with  people  having 
different  outlooks  on  things,  the  delightful  exchange 
of  ideas  and  points  of  view,  the  mutual  supple- 
menting and  stimulating  would  be  gone,  every  one 
would  think  the  .same  thing  as  every  other,  and 
in  every  one  we  should  find  only  our  own  echo. 
Conversation  would  lose  all  its  charm,  we  should 
never  escape  from  our  own  insufficient  and  intolerable 
selves,  and  society,  which  already  suffers  from  the 
disease  of  uniformity,  and  the  "general  average," 
would  become  utterly  weary,  flat,  and  unprofitable. 

Such — not  exaf^gcrated — is  Mill's  objection  or  ap- 
prehension as  to  Socialism  and  Communism.'     He  is 
>  See  "  Pol.  Economy,"  Bk.  II.  cli.  I.  §  3. 


178  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

evidently  deeply  impressed  with  it ;  and  in  fact  there  is 
much  in  it.  I  think,  however,  that  Mill  exaggerates 
the  danger  from  this  side,  though  it  is  real.  There  is 
no  doubt  that  if  we  framed  our  conception  of  the 
Socialist  State  from  More's  Utopia,  from  existing 
communities,  or  even  from  the  Fourierist  scheme,  there 
would  be  reason  to  dread  the  want  of  diversity  of 
type,  and  even  want  of  originality  of  thought,  feeling, 
and  character.  Certain  considerations,  however,  not 
dwelt  on  by  Mill  would  remove  some  of  the  weight 
of  the  objection  under  a  reasonable  form  of  Col- 
lectivism, supposed  otherwise  practicable  ;  one  such 
consideration  being  the  increasing  variety  of  life 
owing  to  evolution,  social,  industrial,  and  even  in- 
tellectual. Life  gives  increasing  play  in  all  direc- 
tions to  the  division  and  specialization  of  work, 
and  this  very  fact  must  prevent,  under  any  possible 
Socialism,  the  dreaded  uniformity  and  monotony  of 
life  and  character,  and  must  result,  as  a  condition  of 
its  existence,  in  that  diversity  of  talent  and  taste 
which  Mill  fears  would  be  crushed.  It  can  hardly  be 
doubted  that  under  any  Socialism  that  is  at  all 
possible,  there  would  be  men  of  science,  men  of 
letters  and  artists,  as  well  as  inventors,  engineers, 
captains  of  industhy,  if  not  captains  of  war,  and  the 
whole  hierarchy  of  labourers  of  all  kind.s.  It  is  not 
to  be  doubted  that  the  men  of  science  would  cultivate 
different  provinces,  that  the  cultivators  of  each 
branch  would  not  be  all  equal  in  intellect,  and  that 
occasionally  a  Lyell  or  a  Darwin  might  appear;  there  is 
not  much  danger  that  poets,  historians,  critics,  essayists, 
novel  writers  would  not  be  allowed  in  the  Socialist 


IN  THE  SOCIALIST  STATE.  179 

State  in  whatever  way  they  might  get  their  wages,  or 
in  whatever  way  the  best  might  be  selected,  and  these 
men  of  letters  will  differ  in  degree  as  well  as  in  kind. 
A  genius  might  be  expected  now  and  then  to  appear, 
and  short  of  that  there  would  always  be  some  higher 
than  others.  The  best  would  be  numerous,  and  if  the 
select  in  the  different  intellectual  provinces  should 
meet  in  some  future  Academy,  they  would  still  form 
good  company,  and  it  would  not  be  for  want  of  variety 
of  outlook  on  life  and  the  universe  if  they  bore  each 
other.  The  real  danger  is  not  that  there  would  be 
little  variety  in  taste  and  talents,  but  that  the  generality 
in  the  same  sphere  would  be  too  like  each  other,  and 
that  there  would  be  a  sort  of  Chinese  equality  of 
intellect  with  little  or  no  originality,  and  with,  as  a 
consequence,  an  arrest  of  development  or  diminished 
progress. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
under  all  schemes  of  Socialism,  except  Anarchism, 
the  generality  would  receive  a  higher  education  than 
now,  that  all  promise  at  least  greater  leisure  than 
now  for  the  generality,  who  consequently  would 
most  probably  take  greater  pleasure  in  mental 
things,  in  literature,  science,  and  art.  And  as  this 
general  light  and  culture  would  be  wider  and  deeper, 
it  would  awaken  and  ripen  the  seeds  of  genius 
which  now  never  get  an  opportunity  ;  it  is  therefore 
highly  probable  that  originality  would,  on  the  whole, 
be  greatly  increased.  Certain  it  is  that  new  veins  of 
originality  and  genius  would  be  struck  in  the  virgin  soil 
of  the  hitherto  uncultivated  minds  of  the  mass  which 
would    yield    rich    results.       That    this    is   no    fancy 


l80  ~  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

deduction  but  all  but  certain  theory,  is  confirmed  when 
we  remember  the  amount  ox""  genius  that  has  burst  up- 
wards in  spite  of  lack  of  culture  and  a  forbidden  tree 
of  knowledge.  It  is  difficult,  indeed,  to  keep  the 
highest  order  of  genius  back  in  certain  provinces, 
such  as  the  fine  arts  or  the  inventive  arts,  especially 
where,  as  in  the  former,  to  do  so  has  always  dimly 
been  felt  as  a  crime  against  humanity,  or  as  in  the 
latter  where  it  is  obviously  useful,  and  consequently 
in  the  fine  arts  especially,  a  Burns,  a  Beethoven, 
supreme  and  original  geniuses,  will  mostly  find  some 
expression  for  their  genius.  But  how  miserable  even 
their  conditions  have  mostly  been,  how  incomplete 
their  utterance  generally,  and  how  many  only  less  than 
they  have  not  spoken  !  How  many  have  even  been 
wholly  repressed,  who  might  have  excelled  in  science, 
philosophy,  scholarship,  literature  (other  than  poetry), 
where  full  development  of  faculty  postulates  a  certain 
degree  of  previous  culture.  It  is  of  the  successful 
few  of  such  as  these  that  Heine  speaks  when  in- 
stancing the  case  of  Lessing  ;  he  says,  '^  The 
greater  portion  of  their  life  was  spent  in  poverty  and 
misery — a  curse  which  rests  on  almost  all  the  great 
minds  of  Germany,  and  which  probably  will  only  be 
overcome  by  the  political  emancipation."  And  most 
certainly  under  such  a  revolution  as  Socialism,  many 
more  of  such  superior  spirits  would  find  an  oppor- 
tunity. We  have  spoken  chiefly  of  art,  invention, 
and  literature  in  the  widest  sense,  including  the  use 
of  words  by  speakers  as  well  as  writers  ;  it  has  been 
in  these  that  the  geniuses  of  the  people  have  hitherto 
had  any  opportunity  ;  in  arms,  politics  or  administra- 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  l8l 

tion  they  had  no  opportunity  of  proving  superior 
capacity  till  after  the  French  Revolution.  Since  that 
time  great  statesmen  and  soldiers  have  sprung  from 
the  Fourth  Estate  and  the  lower  middle  class,  both  in 
France  and  in  America  ;  and  there  is  every  reason  to 
believe  that  there  is  much  ability  of  this  as  of  the 
other  order  latent  in  the  body  of  the  people  in  every 
country  on  all  of  which  reflective  Socialists  propose 
to  draw. 

Doubts  have,  however,  been  frequently  expressed 
whether  culture  would  not  be  in  danger  under 
Socialism — culture  as  distinct  from  originality  and 
genius,  which  are  the  fountains  that  increase  it  and 
minister  to  its  enjoyment.  Would  the  mass  of  the 
people  in  a  democratic  society,  it  is  urged,  appreciate 
a  thing  they  had  not  got,  and  did  not  know  ?  Would 
they  recognize  the  necessity  of  setting  apart  funds 
for  its  support  and  encouragement  ?  According  to 
Professor  Sidgwick,  the  development  of  culture  has 
been  hitherto  due  to  the  existence  of  a  rich  and 
leisured  class.  "It  is  only  in  a  society  of  compara- 
tively rich  and  leisured  persons  that  these  capacities 
(for  culture) — and  still  more,  the  faculties  of  pro- 
ducing excellent  works  in  literature  and  art — are 
likely  to  be  developed  and  transmitted  in  any  high 
degree  ;  "  from  which  it  is  inferred  that  in  the  absence 
of  a  rich  and  leisured  class  the  growth  of  cu  ture 
would  be  in  danger  of  being  checked."  But  although 
this  objection  would  probably  apply  to  full  communism 
and  thorou.jh-going  equality,  it  does  not  apply  to 
Socialism  where  some  inequality  of  wealth  is  allowed, 
=  Pol.  Kcon.,  Book  111.  cli.  vii.  §  2. 
11 


1 82  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

and  where  considerable  leisure,  though  more  diffused, 
would  exist ;  it  would  not  apply  to  a  Socialism 
gradually  led  up  to.  under  which  a  better  education 
would  be  given  to  all,  and  in  which  a  certain  amount 
of  leisure  would  naturally  attach  to  certain  dignities 
and  positions,  as  now.  At  present  the  rich  and  leisured 
(more  or  less)  are  perhaps  the  chief  patrons  of  litera- 
ture and  art ;  books  and  pictures  are  addressed  to 
them,  but  even  now  they  do  not  furnish  the  highest 
instances  of  culture,  and  are  not  ideal  patrons  of  the 
persons  who  are  its  ministers,  of  those  who  arouse  its 
capacities,  increase  its  range,  or  purvey  nutriment  to 
it.  As  to  the  inference  based  on  past  experience 
that  it  is  only  in  a  society  of  comparatively  rich  and 
leisured  persons  that  the  "  faculties  of  producing 
excellent  works  in  literature  and  art  are  likely  to  be 
developed  and  transmitted  in  any  high  degree,"!  would 
merely  say  that  it  would  not  apply  to  a  Socialism 
under  which  there  would  be  some  inequality  of  in- 
come and  some  leisure,  with  education  wider  in  sub- 
ject, and  deeper  as  well  as  more  diffused  than  at 
present ;  while  if  the  proposition  implies  that  the 
rich  and  leisured,  or  their  children,  are  more  likely, 
not  merely  to  be  the  patrons  of  literature  and  art, 
but  themselves  to  produce  excellent  literary  or  artistic 
works,  I  am  inclined,  for  the  reasons  already  given, 
to  think  it  the  reverse  of  the  truth. 

How  far  art  and  literature  which  minister  to  culture 
would,  under  Socialism,  be  likely  to  be  encouraged 
in  the  sense  that  artists  and  literary  men  would  be 
paid  from  the  public  resources,  are  different  questions 
which  will  be   more   conveniently   considered    when 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  183 

we  come  to  treat  of  unproductive  labour ;  our  chief 
object  in  this  chapter  being  to  consider  the  main 
objections  to  Socialism  in  general.  But  this  much 
may,  however,  here  be  said  ;  that  neither  art  nor 
literature  admit  of  much  co-operative  effort,  nor 
can  the  means  of  production,  which  consist  c^f  the 
artist's  or  author's  special  genius,  be  collectively- 
owned  as  land  or  capital  can  be  ;  they  must  remain 
connected  with  individuals,  from  which  it  would 
seem  to  follow  that  payment  by  fixed  salary  would 
not  be  the  best  mode  of  assigning  to  them  their 
remuneration  ;  so  that  though  both  might  probably 
enough  flourish  under  a  certain  kind  of  Socialism,  they 
would  not  easily  lend  themselves  to  the  kind  called 
Collectivism,  with  a  system  of  fixed  salaries.  Espe- 
cially would  this  apply  in  the  case  of  art  where  the 
artist  cannot  be  made  to  work  his  best  to  order, 
and  where,  though  he  would  probably  work  for  little 
if  in  the  vein,  his  art  being  pleasurable  in  itself,  he 
would  also,  as  at  present  constituted,  like  good 
material  wages,  which  would  be  better  given  him  by 
the  purchaser  of  his  picture,  whether  the  State,  the 
Municipality,  or  the  State  official  in  receipt  of  a 
liberal  salary,  assuming  that  such  would  still  continue 
to  be. 


l84  SOCIALISM    NEW   AND   OLD. 


CHAPTER  VI. 
In  the  Socialist  State  [continued). 

THE   distribution   OF   WEALTH. 


And  now  as  regards  the  great  question  of  Distribu- 
tion, what  is  to  be  the  rule  or  principle  under  the  new 
Socialism  ?  Can  it  lay  down  a  juster  principle  than 
determines  the  division  of  produce  to-day,  that  will  be 
at  once  practicable  and  that  will  not  result  ulteriorly 
in  having  less  to  divide.  This  is  the  capital  question 
on  which  the  future  of  Collectivism  depends. 

As  regards  the  production  of  wealth  things  go  on 
very  well  at  present.  Labour,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  is 
already  in  general  collectively  or  co-operatively  organ- 
ized so  as  to  produce  the  greatest  result,  wherever  it  is 
most  economical  to  have  it  so  organized.  The  pro- 
duction, as  a  matter  of  fact,  is  very  great  and  sufficient 
to  give  necessaries  to  all,  comforts  and  decencies  to 
multitudes,  luxurious  commodities  to  many.  The 
only  thing  wrong  as  regards  production,  even  accord- 
ing to  the  Socialists,  is  that  expensive  luxuries  are 
produced  for  a  few,  necessitating  much  labour,  which 
would  cease  under  Socialism  ;  but  apart  from  this  they 
have  little  improvements  to  suggest  as  regards  pro- 
duction.    Not  so  as  regards  distribution.     The  exist- 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  185 

ing  distribution,  they  say,  is  monstrous  and  iniquitous, 
a  systeni  of  organized  confiscation  and  plunder,  partly 
by  the  capitalist  employers  who  pay  only  half  wages, 
partly  by  bankers,  financiers  and  the  lending  class 
in  general  who  get  a  share  of  profits  in  the  shape  of 
interest,  doing  little  or  nothing  in  return  for  it ;  then 
by  a  series  of  middlemen — carriers  and  distributors 
— who  get  their  share  for  small,  sometimes  needless 
work,  by  raised  prices  or  heavy  rates,  for  which  the 
consumer,  who  is  mostly  of  the  working  classes,  must 
finally  pay.  Thus,  between  the  upper  and  the  nether 
millstone  of  reduced  wages  which  they  receive,  and 
enhanced  prices  which  they  must  pay  to  middlemen, 
sometimes  to  monopolists  and  speculators,  are  the 
working  classes  placed,  who  really  produce  all,  and 
for  the  most  part  transport  all,  while  these  same  ca- 
pitalists, middlemen,  financiers,  rentiers,  speculators, 
monopolists  of  all  sorts,  flourish,  not  to  speak  of  the 
landlords,  whose  rent  increases  while  they  do  no- 
thing, of  the  clergymen,  who  are  either  needless 
spiritual  middlemen  or  the  moral  police  of  property, 
of  the  lawyers,  etc.,  who  do  useless,  perhaps  injurious 
work,  all  of  whom  in  the  last  resort  have  to  be  paid 
from  the  productive  labour  of  the  working  classes. 

Thus  say  the  Socialists,  in  language  very  exag- 
gerated, cpccially  as  regards  the  employer  of  labour, 
but  with  a  certain  truth  withal.  For  that  the  actual 
existing  distribution  now  mainly  made  by  so-called 
free  contracts,  but  based  on,  and  its  inequalities  made 
perpetual  by,  private  property  and  inheritance,  results 
necessarily  in  injustice,  all  are  agreed,  from  extreme 
Socialists  down  to  political  economists  like  Mill  and 


1 86  SOCIALISM  NEW  AND  OLD. 

Cairnes  ;  the  latter  of  whom  declares  in  his  last  book- 
er Leading  Principles  of  Political  Economy")  that  the 
present  system  had  results  not "  easy  to  reconcile  with 
any  standard  of  right  accepted  amongst  men."  Not 
less  emphatic  is  Mill's  condemnation,  often  repeated 
in  his  treatise  on  "  Political  Economy  ;  "  and  in  fact 
there  cannot  be  a  doubt  that  Socialism  derives  its 
chief  strength  from  a  widespread  belief  that  the 
present  system  results  in  injustices,  which  are  con- 
demned by  the  moral  sense  and  contrary  tc  the 
aims  of  right  legislation 

What  is  the  cure  proposed  by  Collectivism  .?  It 
does  not  believe  much  in  partial  State-Socialism,  in 
Co-operative  Production  whether  voluntary  or  State- 
aided,  in  Profit-sharing,  or  in  Trades  Unions.  These 
would  all  leave  the  existing  system  substantially 
intact,  while  co-operative  production  and  profit- 
sharing  would  still  adhere  in  principle  to  the  master 
evil  of  competition  which,  according  to  the  Socialists, 
produces  the  existing  commercial  anarchy,  neces- 
sitates low  wages,  over-production,  sophisticated 
goods,  and  unemployed  workers.  These  different 
remedies  are  not  even  palliatives  ;  it  is  a  doubtful 
point,  they  think,  whether  they  are  not  mischievous 
by  raising  false  hopes,  delaying  the  true  remedy, 
and  setting  the  working  classes  on  wrong  roads.  They 
can  only,  any  one  of  them,  be  said  to  be  good  so 
far  as  they  can  be  regarded  as  steps  in  the  direction 
of  the  Collectivist  ideal,  as  State-Socialism  (in  the 
narrower  sense)  in  general  is, — though  not  always  ;  as 
for   example,   when  it   establishes   small   individual 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  1 87 

proprietors  in  Ireland,  or  in  the  Highlands,  instead  of 
introducing  collective  ownership. 

What  then  is  to  be  the  new  principle  of  Distribu- 
tion .''     That  each  shall  receive  in  proportion  to  his  \ 
works,  by  which  Scha;tiflc  understands,  "according  to 
the  amount  and  social  utility  of  the  productive  labour 
of  each." 

The  principle,  though  not  unexceptionable,  would 
seem  to  embody  a  working  rule  of  Justice.'  The  diffi- 
culty is  to  apply  it.  How  are  we  to  know  how  much  a 
worker  produces  in  a  cotton  or  linen  factory  where 
machines  are  working  as  well  as  he,  and  where  the 
workof  twenty  different  kinds  of  labourers  isnecessary 
as  well  as  his  to  the  final  product?  Where  there  is 
a  common  result  from  different  kinds  of  human  labour, 
from  machine  labour,  and  even  from  the  gratuitous 
labour  of  natural  forces,  how  are  we  to  measure  the 
amount  of  the  product,  thus  due  to  such  different  co- 
operant  agents,  with  which  an  individual  is  to  be 
credited  ?  The  fact  is,  we  cannot  pronounce  how 
much  of  the  final  product  in  yards  of  cloth  any  one 
has  produced,  not  even  if  we  attribute  to  the  man  the 
work  done  by  the  machine  he  merely  tends,  and  we 
arc  obliged  to  be  content  with  the  rough  convention, 
that  each  one's  work — the  quantity  of  his  production 
— shall  be  measured  by  the  number  of  hours  of  his 
labour,  the  labour  being  supposed  by  Marx  to  be 

'  The  principle   would  not  indeed  be  idcnlly  just  according 
to    Mill  :    to    j;ivc    more  to   those   who    prockice    nif)re,    the 
strong  and    capable,    is   to  give  more   to  those  alrcidy   most 
favoured  by  nature.     Nevertheless  he  defends  it  on  grounds  of 
expediency. 


1 88  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

of  common  or  "average"  kind,  though  the  standard 
is  sufficiently  vague,  while  skilled  labour  is  to  be 
rated  or  regarded  as  average  labour  "intensified  or 
multiplied,"  which  imp  >rts  an  additional  vagueness 
and  uncertainty  into  the  estimate. 

At  all  events,  in  the  factory,  every  eight  hours  of 
this  average  labour,  if  there  be  any  such,  is  to  be 
reckoned  as  good  and  as  productive  as  every  other, 
whether  like  or  unlike  in  kind.  The  formula  "  To 
each  in  proportion  to  his  works,"  means,  "  To  each  in 
proportion  to  the  number  of  hours  of  work,"  or  labour- 
time,  as,  according  to  Marx,  time  is  essentially  the 
stuff  of  which  the  product  is  made.  Labour-force  is 
converted  into  labour-time,  of  which  products  are 
only  a  "congelation."  Products  are  "congealed 
labour-time."  Labourers  in  the  factory  who  have 
worked  the  same  number  of  hours  are  to  get  the  same 
wages,  the  more  skilled  being  reduced  to  the  average 
by  some,  we  are  not  told  what,  rule  of  conversion  ; 
while  all  other  labourers,  spinners,  masons,  miners,  car- 
penters, are  to  receive  the  same  remuneration  as 
weavers,  provided  their  labour  is  as  near  to  the 
standard  of  average  labour  as  that  of  weavers. 

Now  let  us  allow  that  it  might  be  possible  to  tell 
roughly  the  number  of  hours  of  average  work 
rendered  by  these  labourers  per  day,  or  per  week,  or 
per  year.  The  book  keepers  and  clerks  might  keep 
an  account  for  each,  and  might  give  certificates  for  the 
number  of  hours  or  of  normal  days  of  average  labour. 
The  question  is.  How  are  we  to  give  him  his  share  of 
products  proportionate  to  his  certificates  or  labour- 
cheques  ?     Before  we  can   do   so   the  values  of  all 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  1 89 

products  must  be  expressed  in  terms  of  the  same 
unit.  Instead  of  as  now  expressed  in  money,  they 
must  be  expressed  in  labour-time  :  a  pound  of  tea,  a 
yard  of  cotton,  a  ton  of  coals  must  be  priced  or 
valued  as  so  many  units  of  labour-time,  whether 
the  unit  be  the  product  of  an  hour  or  of  a  normal 
day,  as  Schaeffle  prefers.  Everything  must  have  a 
price  or  value  expressed  in  labour-time,  or  we  cannot 
tell  how  much  our  labour-notes  will  fetch.  But  it 
will  not  be  easy  to  determine  the  value  of  a  given 
portion  of  any  product  in  labour-time,  because  most 
products — wheat,  coal,  cloth,  beer — are  the  results  of 
a  long  series  of  different  kinds  of  labour  which  it  will 
be  necessary  to  ascertain  and  add  up.  When,  indeed, 
we  have  got  the  number  of  units  incorporated  in  the 
total  product,  it  is  only  a  question  of  arithmetic  to  de- 
termine how  much  is  contained  in  a  given  portion,  as  a 
yard,  a  ton,  a  gallon,  or  other  definite  quantity.  The 
value  of  these  in  labour-time  is  given,  and  we 
have  only  to  present  the  same  amount  of  labour- 
cheques  if  we  want  to  get  them.  The  difficulty  consists 
in  keeping  an  account  of  the  number  of  hours,  in  re- 
ducing different  kinds  of  labour  to  average  labour,  and 
when  all  is  done  the  question  arises  whether  the 
present  method  of  distribution,  which  is  certainly 
simpler,  would  not  also  be  juster  on  the  whole,  as 
well  as  assign  to  the  worker  a  larger  share. 

The  theory  of  value  is,  however,  one  on  which 
great  stress  is  laid  by  Socialists,  and  in  particular 
by  Karl  Marx,  According  to  Scha^ffle,  the  idea 
that  labour-time  is  the  measure  of  value  "  forms 
theoretically    in    the    strictest    sense    the    basis    of 


1 90  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND  OLD. 

Socialism  ;"  and  he  thinks  the  whole  theory  of  value 
more  important  for  the  future  of  nations  than  any  of 
Rousseau's  theories."  It  will  therefore  be  profitable 
to  illustrate  the  theory  more  fully,  as  well  as  to  ex- 
amine its  applicability,  for  which  purpose  it  will  be  de- 
sirable to  see  how  the  theory  would  work  in  a  concrete 
case.  Let  us  take  the  case  of  manufactured  cotton 
goods :  and  for  simplification,  we  may  omit  the  series  of 
labourers  in  America  by  supposing  that  an  equivalent 
in  goods  has  been  paid  for  the  raw  cotton.  All  previous 
labour  having  been  thus  paid  for  before  unlading  the 
bales  at  Liverpool,  we  must  first  of  all  estimate  how 
many  hours  of  labour  are  already  in  this  raw  cotton, 
which  we  will  suppose  to  be  represented  by  the  total 
number  of  hours  in  the  goods  given  for  it.  (Of  course  if 
money  had  been  given  we  should  have  to  convert  the 
money  into  labour- time.)  We  must  then  add  the  num- 
ber of  hours'  labour  of  unlading,  the  hours  of  the  dock 
hands  and  wharfingers,  the  hours  of  the  draymen  who 
convey  it  to  the  railway  station,  of  the  railway  porters, 
of  the  guards  and  engine-drivers.  All  these  mere 
carriers  have  a  claim  on  the  ultimate  product,  or  on 
products  in  general,  measured  by  their  number  of 
hours  of  work  or  labour-time — a  very  unequal 
measure  indeed  for  the  railway  porter,  and  the  railway 
guard  and  engine-drivers,  the  former  of  whom  only 
bestowed  a  few  minutes'  hard  work,  and  the  latter  no 
definitely  measurable  work  on  the  goods  at  all,  their 
time  being  spent  in  the  general  transport  and  care  of 
both  passengers  and  goods.  But  we  are  only  at  the 
commencement  of  the  difficulties  raised  by  making 
*  "Quintessence  of  Socialism,"  p.  8i. 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  IQI 

labour-time  the  measure  of  value.  We  will  suppose  a 
careful  estimate  made  of  all  the  additional  hours  added 
on  to  the  value  by  all  the  carriers.  Next  comes  the 
labour  of  so  many  spinners,  which  is  divided  into 
many  successive  stages,  as  well  as  many  simultaneous 
operations  ;  unlike  in  kind,  in  continuity,  in  intensity, 
some  difficult  but  intermittent,  some  light  but  pro- 
longed :  sometimes  requiring  the  labour  of  strong 
men,  sometimes  better  done  by  the  defter  fingers  of 
young  women,  some  parts  of  which  are  quite  effectively 
done  by  the  labour  of  children  (at  present  paid  in 
money  at  a  lower  rate) ; — are  all  these  dissimilar  la- 
bourers to  be  paid  alike  in  future,  is  their  labour  all  to 
be  measured  by  the  number  of  hours'  work  ?  It  cannot 
be  said  that  we  have  here  all  common  or  average 
labour  ;  if  not  how  are  the  different  kinds  to  be  reduced 
to  average  labour  ?  And  it  will  be  necessary  to  know, 
because  otherwise  we  shall  neither  know  the  ultimate 
value  of  the  cotton  cloth,  nor  yet  the  fair  share  of  the 
produce  which  each  worker  is  entitled  to,  since  the 
value  of  the  cloth,  as  of  all  else,  is  to  be  measured  by 
the  number  of  hours  of  average  labour  embodied  or 
realized  in  it. 

We  are  not  yet  done  with  the  difficulties.  After 
going  through  twenty  processes,  the  yarn  is  turned  off 
the  spindles  and  wound.  It  is  then  transferred  to  the 
weaving  factory  without  any  intermediate  buying  and 
selh'ng,  which  would  be  one  advantage  of  collective 
management.  After  twenty  more  processes,  engaging 
many  different  kinds  of  labourers  of  unccjual  skill  and 
intelligence,  including  foremen,  clerks,  overseers, 
managers,  all  the  hours  of  labour  of  all  will  have  to 


192  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

be  expressed  in  common  or  average  labour  ;  will  have 
to  be  added  up  to  get  the  total  value  ;  and  will  have  to 
be  kept  separately  in  accounts  so  that  each  one  may- 
get  his  due  number  of  cheques  and  no  more  to  pre- 
sent against  goods  or  services.  Then,  more  carriers' 
labour  will  be  required,  as  well  as  bleachers,  and  their 
contributions  in  time  must  be  added  on  to  the  value 
estimate,  because  they,  too,  will  have  a  claim  as 
respects  the  total  product.  It  will  finally  be  conveyed 
to  warehouses.  It  may  then  be  made  into  necessary 
articles  of  direct  utility  ;  the  values  of  each  of  which 
will  have  to  be  estimated  by  the  book-keepers  and 
valuers  from  the  value  in  hours  of  the  amount  of 
material  in  it,  together  with  the  additional  hours  of  the 
seamstress,  whom,  on  Marx's  principles,  we  must  sup- 
pose aided  by  the  sewing  machine,  as  the  latest  social 
and  technical  aid  to  her  labour.  As  to  the  book- 
keeper's own  labour  I  will  only  say  that,  however 
difficult  it  would  be  to  measure  it  on  the  theory  under 
consideration,  it  will  be  very  real  and  responsible. 

If  the  question  be  raised,  what  is  Marx's  standard 
of  average  or  common  labour,  it  is  not  easy  to  reply. 
It  is  not  a  real  objective  one,  as  the  labour  of  the  car- 
penter, the  mason,  the  ploughman,  or  any  other.  It 
is  something  lower,  simpler,  and  less  skilled  than  the 
least  skilledof  these.  There  is  no  formal  definition  of  it, 
but  it  is  described  as  "the  expenditure  of  simple  labour 
power,  i.e.  the  labour  power  which  on  an  average, 
apart  from  any  special  development,  exists  in  the 
organism  of  every  ordinary  individual."  "  Skilled 
labour  counts  only  as  average  labour  intensified,  or 
rather  as  multiplied  simple  labour,  a  given  quantity 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  193 

of  skilled  labour  being  considered  equal  to  a  greater 
quantity  of  simple  labour."  It  is  further  described 
as  "mere  human  labour,  simple  average  labour," 
finally  with  a  nearer  approach  to  light,  though  not 
quite  to  definiteness  of  conception,  which  is  what  is 
wanted  in  a  standard  of  comparison,  it  is  "simple 
unskilled  labour,^  to  which  the  different  sorts  of  skilled 
labour  are  reduced  as  their  standard."  He  adds, 
"  for  simplicity's  sake  we  shall  henceforth  account 
every  kind  of  labour  to  be  unskilled  labour  ;  by  this 
we  do  no  more  than  save  ourselves  the  trouble  of 
making  the  reduction  ;  " — a  saving  of  trouble  much 
to  be  regretted  if,  as  implied,  the  reduction  could 
have  been  made  by  Marx. 

The  standard  then  is  simple  unskilled  labour,  of 
which,  however,  it  is  not  easy  to  get  examples  in  the 
concrete,  especially  as  nearly  all  labour  requires  the 
aid  of  some  implements  and  .^ome  degree  of  skill, 
however  faint.  Perhaps  the  rude  labour  which  a 
"man  out  of  work"  could  do  or  iould  learn  to  do  in 
a  few  days  might  be  supposed  to  furnish  examples. 
But  even  this  should  not  be  labour  requiring  excep- 
tional strength  as  that  of  the  navvy  or  dock-labourer, 
for  this  would  not  be  average  labour,  or  "  the  exercise 
of  labour-power  which  exists  in  the  organism  of  every 
ordinary  individual."  The  first  difficulty  is  the  want 
of  a  clear  and  definite  conception  of  the  standard, 
before  wc  can  hope  to  reduce  other  kinds  of  labour  to 
it.  The  standard  remains  an  ideal  thing,  an  abstract 
or  general  conception,  while  wc  want  a  definite  con- 

»  "C?piial,"  vol.  i.  p.  II. 


194  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND  OLD. 

Crete  conception,  as  of  such  a  kind  of  work  for  such  a 
length  of  time. 

The  next  difficulty  is  to  reduce  the  many  different 
sorts  of  skilled  labour  to  this  standard.  And  con- 
fining ourselves  in  particular  to  the  different  kinds  of 
labour  in  the  factory,  all  of  which  are  above  this  un- 
skilled labour,  how  are  we  to  reduce  them  ?  We 
must  first  reduce  the  labour  of  the  ordinary  opera- 
tive to  it.  But  by  what  rule  ?  How  much  is  it  to 
be  rated  above  average  labour  ?  Then  comes  the 
skilled  labour  of  the  manual  sort :  this  has  to  be 
reduced  to  average  labour.  Is  it  to  be  twice  or  thrice, 
and  why  ?  Then  where  intelligence  is  of  importance, 
how  is  the  labour  into  which  it  enters  to  be  expressed 
in  terms  of  average  labour? — the  labour  e.g.  of  the  fore- 
man and  overseer,  or  of  the  clerks  who  must  corre- 
spond in  foreign  languages,  or  finally  of  the  owner  or 
manager  whose  work  in  organizing  and  directing  is 
altogether  intellectual  and  moral  ?  And  yet  all  these 
labourers  arerequired  to  produce  thefinal  thing,orwhat 
is  equally  necessary,  to  find  a  market.^  All  the  labour 
must  be  rated  in  hours  of  common  or  average  labour, 
or  we  cannot  tell  what  is  its  value  on  Marx's  princi- 
ples ;  and  if  we  do  not  know  its  value,  we  cannot  tell 
the  value  of  a  given  portion  of  the  product,  nor  by 

■•  Under  Collectivism,  indeed,  there  would  be  nolabour  neces- 
sary to  find  a  market  at  home  ;  and  much  of  the  above  labour 
would  be  spared  ;  while  the  high  ability  now  required  to  dis- 
tance rivals  would  find  no  proper  scope.  There  would  still, 
however,  be  some  business  ability  of  this  particular  kind 
required  to  find  the  best  foreign  markets  for  our  manufactures; 
while  all  other  kinds  of  ability  tending  to  increase  production, 
would,  of  course,  be  as  much  needed  as  before. 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  195 

consequence  how  much  of  it  the  different  workers  can 
get  in  exchange  for  their  certificates  for  hours  of 
work.  We  have  no  Law  of  Distribution,  to  get  which 
was  the  chief  object  of  this  theory  of  value,  none, 
save  one  impossible  of  application — that  each  one 
should  get  in  proportion  to  his  work,  or  as  much  of 
the  objectified  time-products  as  he  had  given  in 
average  labour-time. 

Thus,  then,  we  see  that  even  with  respect  to  the 
workers  of  a  single  factory,  hours  of  work  would  be 
an  imperfect  and  unequal  measure  of  work.  Even  if 
it  could  be  applied  it  would  very  imperfectly  realize 
justice,  which  is  the  object  in  view  ;  while  it  could 
not  be  applied  without  the  greatest  difficulty.  The 
difficulty  increases  if  we  compare  the  labour  in  a  given 
industry  with  the  labour  of  connected  or  subsidiary 
industries,  the  labour  of  weaving  with  spinning,  or 
with  the  labour  of  transport  or  circulation  of  the 
product ; — still  more,  if  we  compare  one  kind  of  pro- 
ductive labour  with  another  ;  agricultural  labour  with 
mining,  or  with  carpentering,  weaving,  or  navigating 
a  ship.  The  difficulty  of  comparing  in  this  way  pro- 
ductive with  unproductive  labour  is  too  obvious,  e.g. 
the  labour  of  a  magistrate  and  a  business  manager, 
or  of  a  soldier,  a  school-master,  and  an  artisan,  while, 
with  respect  to  some  kinds  of  unproductive  labour, 
though  highly  important,  time  has  little  or  nothing 
to  do  with  the  work  or  its  value. 

The  fact  is,  that  where  time  as  a  measure  is  appli- 
cable roughly,  it  is  already  applied,  and  workers  for 
the  .same  time  in  the  same  species  of  work  are  paid 
by  time  and  paid  the  same  amount.     In  other  cases 


196  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

where  it  would  be  impossible  to  tell  how  many  hours 
they  have  really  worked  they  are  still  paid  by  time 
— the  day,  week,  or  month.  They  are  paid  a  certain 
amount  per  week  agreed  on  for  their  work,  without 
the  vain  attempt  to  estimate  how  many  minutes  or 
hours  of  their  work  is  objectified  in  the  final  material 
product.  In  other  cases  again  they  are  paid  not  by 
time  but  by  the  job,  or  for  the  special  service,  where 
the  time- consideration  is  not  the  important  point. 

II. 

As  to  Marx's  theory  that  skilled  labour  is  ordinary 
labour  intensified  or  multiplied,  we  must  ask  in  what 
sense  it  is  common  labour  multiplied  or  intensified? 

An  hour's  labour  of  the  skilled  sort  is  not  two  or 
three  or  any  number  of  times  as  severe  or  painful,  or 
disagreeable,  as  an  hour  of  common  labour,  it  is  pro- 
bably less  so,  possibly  it  is  even  pleasant,  though  even 
were  it  otherwise,  there  is  no  quantitative  measure  of 
these  degrees.  Nor  can  we  say  that  skilled  labour 
requires  greater  muscular  effort,  of  which  there  is 
a  quantitative  measure  in  the  number  of  foot  pounds 
lifted  a  given  height.  Thus  estimated,  we  should 
have  to  reverse  the  Marxian  proposition,  and  say 
that  average  labour  was  skilled  labour  multiplied. 
But  perhaps  skilled  labour  consumes  greater  ner- 
vous, including  brain  energy,  though  less  muscular 
effort  or  energy,  and  that  taken  all  together  the 
quantity  of  energy  consumed  by  skilled  labour  is 
greater.  Now  it  is,  perhaps,  true  that  there  is  a 
greater  quantity  of  energy  on  the  whole  consumed 
by  the  skilled  than  the  unskilled  labour,  but  science 


IN   THE   SOCIAT  1ST   STATE,  1 9/ 

as  yet  is  not  able  to  state  the  law  of  relation  between 
muscular  and  nervous  energy,  nor  by  consequence 
to  tell  how  much  of  one  sort  is  equal  to  how  much 
of  the  other.  It  is  not  even  able  to  measure  nervous 
energy  other  than  muscular.  The  muscular  effort, 
the  dead  strain  of  lifting  a  weight  through  a  height 
by  a  navvy  or  a  dock-hand  it  can  measure,  not  the 
various  efforts  of  the  worker  in  a  skilled  art,  all 
directed  to  realize  one  end  ;  some  slight  and 
delicate,  some  more  tense,  some  drawing  on  the 
brain,  some  mechanical  but  deft,  as  in  the  arts  of 
the  weaver,  the  working  jeweller,  or  any  other. 
Here  there  is  no  measure  of  the  quantity  of  the 
energy  or  of  the  quantity  of  the  labour,  conse- 
quently no  possibility  of  comparing  this  kind  of 
labour  with  common  labour,  which  consists  mainly, 
.though  not  altogether,  of  the  former  kind  of  effort. 
To  take  examples,  how  many  times  is  the  labour 
of  the  carpenter,  the  sailor,  the  type-setter,  the  weaver, 
the  working  jeweller,  the  carver  in  wood  or  stone, 
more  than  Marx's  unskilled  labour  ?  There  is  no 
common  quantitative  measure  or  rulefor  unskilled  and 
skilled  labour,  and  the  unskilled  cannot  be  made  a 
standard,  for  the  other  cannot  possibly  be  converted 
into  it.  And  as  for  skilled  being  common  labour  in- 
tensified, this  has  been  refuted  by  implication  in  the 
above,  because  in  considering  all  possible  differences 
in  quantity  we  were  thrown  on  differences  of  degree, 
as  the  only  conceivable  way  of  trying  to  estimate 
differences  of  quantity.  We  have  considered  all 
respects  in  which  they  could  be  imagined  to  differ  in 
intensity,  namely,  in  severity  of  effort,  or  in  painful- 


198  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

ness  in  general,  with  the  result  that  if  any  proposition 
could  at  all  be  laid  down,  it  would  be  one  the  reverse 
of  Marx's,  that  is,  that  unskilled  labour  is  skilled 
labour  multiplied. 

By  intensity  of  work,  indeed,  Jevons  understands 
degree  of  painfulness,  and  as  skilled  labour  is  un- 
doubtedly in  general  more  pleasant  or  less  painful 
than  unskilled,  by  this  measure  of  intensity,  common 
labour  would  be  skilled  labour  multiplied.  An  hour 
of  common  labour  would,  perhaps,  be  two  or  three 
hours'  skilled  labour,  and  in  the  Socialist  field  of  in- 
dustry should  be  paid  accordingly,  which  might  be 
glad  tidings  for  the  poor,  though  not  contained  in 
the  gospel  according  to  Marx. 

We  must  emphasize  this  point,  because  it  is  fun- 
damental with  Marx  and  the  Socialists,  and  with 
the  failure  to  establish  it,  much  goes  down.  The. 
Marxian  theory  of  value  goes  down  ;  which  makes 
value  depend  on  the  quantity  of  labour,  because  it 
requires  a  reduction  of  skilled  labour  to  unskilled, 
and  we  see  that  this  reduction  cannot  be  made,  in  any 
single  case,  save  arbitrarily.  It  must  be  laid  down 
arbitrarily  or  assumed.  We  could  not,  therefore,  tell 
how  much  of  one  com.modity  would  be  equal  to  how 
much  of  another  save  arbitrarily.  At  present,  we  do 
at  least  know  something  as  to  what  determines  the 
normal  values  of  things.  We  know,  at  least,  where 
there  is  no  monopoly,  that  they  depend  on  the 
money  expenses  of  production,  while  demand  has 
something  to  do  with  them.  In  the  Collectivist 
Commonwealth  there  would  be  no  law  of  value 
except  what  it  pleased  the  rulers  to  lay  down,  on 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  1 99 

some  imaginary  principle  or  on  none  at  all.  Further, 
there  is  no  law  of  Distribution.  So  lonsf  as  we 
could  say  that  any  particular  skilled  labour  was  three 
times  or  five  times  unskilled  or  common  labour,  there 
would  be  a  reason,  and  even  a  necessity  on  the 
Socialist  principle  of  "to  each  in  proportion  to  the 
amount  of  his  work,"  for  unequal  wages  in  the  same 
proportion.  Each  one  is  to  get  in  proportion  to  his 
hours  of  average  labour,  and  since  the  skilled  counts 
as  so  many  times  average  labour,  the  skilled  worker 
must  be  credited  with  so  many  more  hours  of  labour  in 
his  labour  certificates,  and  will  have  a  correspondingly 
larger  order  on  the  general  stock  of  commodities. 
But  the  moment  the  fallacy  of  the  whole  doctrine  is 
shown,  the  reason  for  giving  higher  wages  vanishes, 
while  the  question  is  raised  whether  it  should  not 
be  the  unskilled  that  should  get  higher  wages,  on  the 
ground  that  it  is  skilled  labour  multiplied — multiplied 
in  painfulness,  which  is  Jevons'  mark  of  intensified 
labour,  or  multiplied  in  muscular  effort,  the  only  cir- 
cumstance connected  with  the  theory  of  which  we 
really  have  a  quantitive  measure.^ 

There  would  thus  be  no  reason  for  the  skilled 
receiving  higher  than  the  unskilled  on  the  theory  in 
question.  Kvcn  if  the  skilled  could  be  shown  to 
be  common  labour  multiplied,  still  if  the  acquisition 
of  the  skill   be  paid   for  by  the  State,    as  it  would 

*  I  add  that  Ricardo's  Theory  of  Value,  the  supposed  rock  on 
which  the  whole  theory  of  Marx  reposes,  goes  down  by  the 
preceding  analysis  ef|iially,  and  is  proved  to  be  a  very  sandy  one. 
The  values  of  thinf^s  do  not  now  depend,  any  njorc  tiian  they 
would  in  the  .Socialist  kingdom,  on  quantity  of  labour. 


200  SOCIALISM    NEW   AND   OLD. 

be  under  Collectivism,  and  if  the  exercise  of  the 
art  be  at  least  as  agreeable  as  ordinary  labour,  as  it 
evidently  is,  why  should  the  State  pay  higher  wages  ? 
Having  already  given  the  craftsman  an  advantage  in 
training  him  to  more  agreeable  work,  because  more 
suitable,  why  should  it  give  him  threefold,  or  fourfold 
the  common  wages  ?  The  Collectivists  see  the  diffi- 
culty ;  they  are  much  perturbed  and  divided  by  it, 
and  the  more  advanced  ones  boldly  say  that  the 
wages  must  be  equalized.  But  if  skilled  and  unskilled 
are  to  be  paid  equally,  so  should  be  the  industrial 
chief  and  the  generality  by  the  same  reasoning, 
and  we  have  before  seen  what  the  results  of 
this  would  be  as  regards  production.  If  you  pay 
the  chiefs  low,  you  would  not  get  them  to  exer- 
cise their  ability,  you  would  take  away  all  their 
spring,  energy,  and  initiative.  Why  should  they  take 
trouble  ?  They  are  not  angels,  not  the  high  beings 
postulated,  nor  likely  to  be  for  500  years  ;  at  any 
rate,  for  a  much  longer  period  than  the  "  couple  of 
generations  "  which  some  Socialists  think  sufficient  to 
work  the  miracle  of  transformation  in  them,  however 
it  may  be  with  the  savants,  artists,  or  men  of  letters. 

On  grounds  of  ideal  justice  the  State  could  not  pay 
more  to  the  skilled  than  to  the  unskilled,  nor  to  the 
captain  than  to  the  workers,  but  on  grounds  of  general 
utility  or  expediency  it  absolutely  would  have  to  do 
so  :  it  would  have  to  pay  sufficiently  to  make  all  who 
have  any  ability  above  the  ordinary  exert  it  to  the 
utmost.  If  it  did  not,  they  would  not  exert  it,  they 
would  take  the  minimum  of  trouble,  and  that  for  a 
sufficiently  long  time  to  come,  to  destroy  the  common- 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  201 

wealth.  Pay  the  engineer  and  architect  badly,  and 
bridges  will  be  badly  constructed,  and  Town  Halls 
ugly.  Pay  the  captain  of  industry  badly,  or  reward 
the  inventor  poorly,  and  produce  will  diminish, 
diffused  poverty  result.  Abolish  the  hierarchical 
gradation  of  dignity  and  payment  in  any  direction,  in 
education,  the  military  service,  the  civil  service,  or 
any  other,  and  the  whole  State  would  suffer  grievously ; 
above  all  in  industry  its  abolition  would  be  fatal, 
and  bad,  not  merely  for  those  above,  but  for  those 
lower  down.  The  more  clear-sighted  of  the  last 
indeed  would  themselves  soon  revolt,  and  would 
demand  to  be  "  led  back  again  to  Egypt,"  or  the  old 
industrial  order. 

For  every  ascending  grade  of  skill  there  would  be 
necessary  higher  and  higher  wages,  because  other- 
wise there  would  be  no  sufficient  stimulus  to  higher 
endeavour  and  superior  achievement. 

Even  if  all  were  educated  and  trained  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  State,  so  that  the  best  would  owe  their 
exceptional  skill  and  science  partly  to  the  State  as 
well  as  to  gift  from  Nature,  it  would  still  be  neces- 
sary to  pay  them  higher.  It  is  no  doubt  a  case 
of  "giving  to  him  that  hath,"  to  pay  exceptionally 
the  man  already  exceptionally  gifted  by  Nature.  It 
is  not  ideal  justice,  which  would  seem  to  require  less 
material  reward  for  the  person  with  higher  qualities, 
the  exercise  of  which  is  pleasurable,  and  Mill  even 
seems  to  think  that  men  should  in  this  way  redress 
the  inequalities  made  by  Niiture.  So  also  Louis 
Blanc,  who  pnjphcsies  a  time  when  men  of  superior 
capacity    will    feel    that    their     superior    gifts    only 


202  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

entail  higher  duties.  However,  Nature  makes  the 
primary  inequaHty  in  making  one  man  cleverer 
than  another,  one  woman  more  beautiful  than 
another,  and  under  all  human  societies  these  gifts 
from  Nature  will  insure  further  advantages  to  their 
possessors,  while  in  certain  spheres,  especially  in  the 
industrial,  natural  ability  must  bring  greater  material 
or  money  rewards,  for  the  simple  reason  that  its  pos- 
sessor prefers  such  to  anything  else,  and  society 
will  find  it  its  interest  to  give  him  what  he  desires. 
And  there  is  a  sort  of  justice  in  it  after  all ;  if  he  is 
the  means  of  increasing  society's  material  products 
in  a  greater  proportion  than  other  productive  la- 
bourers, he  is  entitled  on  that  score  to  a  liberal 
share  of  what  would  not  exist  but  for  him.  This  is 
the  final  defence  for  his  higher  share.^  He  causes 
more  to  exist,  therefore  he  should  get  more.  And 
the  like  applies  to  the  man  who  increases  the  sum  of 
useful  services  or  conveniences,  since  men  have  wants 
and  desires,  which  are  gratified  through  services, 
actions,  efforts,  where  no  material  thing  is  in  ques- 
tion, 

^  According  to  Prof.  F.  A.  Walker,  the  share  of  the  director 
of  industry  yenirepreneur)  is  a  creation  due  to  his  ability.  This  is 
certainly  true  in  part,  though  it  would  not  be  easy  to  prove 
that  what  he  adds  to  the  general  wealth  is  precisely  what  he 
gets,  which,  in  the  case  of  his  class,  is  a  certain  percentage  on 
the  capital  managed.  The  amount  of  this  can  be  known  roughly 
from  income-tax  returns,  but  how  much  he  contributes  it  is 
wholly  impossible  to  measure  ;  all  we  can  say  is  that  it  is  con- 
siderable, and  may  be  very  great,  judging  from  a  comparison  of 
countries  where  the  class  is  present  and  active,  like  England, 
with  countries  where  it  is  small  or  non-existent  ;  the  former 
being  wealthy,  the  latter  backward  in  material  progress. 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  2C3 

These  considerations  justify  unequal  wages,  and 
high  wages  to  the  captain  of  industry,  the  discoverer 
of  new  processes,  the  inventor  of  new  and  more 
potent  methods,  the  supplier  of  new  wants,  the  con- 
structor of  great  material  works;  though  they  do 
not  apply  to  justify  excessive  wages  to  any  of  them, 
nor  to  justify  the  gains  of  the  successful  speculator, 
or  of  the  rich  monopolist  who  has  taxed  the  public 
for  his  high  profits,  or  any  of  the  rich  parasites  of 
industry. 

It  would  always  be  the  interest  of  the  State  to  pay 
high  if  the  work  be  necessary  ;  if  few  can  do  it  well  ; 
if  they  will  not  do  it  well  without  the  high  wages. 
This  is  the  case  especially  in  industry,  for  though 
business  qualifications  are  more  widely  extended  than 
certain  other  kinds,  still  the  best  will  be  required,  and 
the  best  will  be  limited.  The  ability  of  the  industrial 
chief  is  not  perhaps  of  the  highest  kind  ;  but  it  will 
require  to  be  specially  well  paid,  because  it  is  closely 
related  to  material  wealth,  and  abundant  material 
wealth  lies  at  the  bottom  of  so  much  else  and  so  many 
higher  things  as  their  necessary  condition. 

The  weak  point  in  Collectivism  is  here.  The  Col- 
lectivists  began  by  affirming  that  they  have  a  perfect 
and  self-acting  law  of  distribution,  connected  with 
their  theory  of  value:  each  is  to  get  according  to  his 
works  ;  his  work  is  measured  by  the  time  he  works, 
which  will  command  products,  or  services  represent- 
ing the  same  time.  Skilled  labour  is  common  labour 
multiplied  ;  so  presumably  is  the  labour  of  the  in- 
dustrial chiefs.  So,  too,  according  to  some  Social  sts, 
is  professional  labour,  from  which  wc  would  naturally 


204  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD, 

infer  unequal  reward.  But  when  all  are  educated 
by  the  State,  it  seems  that  equality  of  reward  is 
to  be  the  rule,  at  any  rate  there  is  to  be  a  great 
levelling.  "  Then  perhaps  an  hour's  work  of  the 
teacher  and  an  hour  of  the  hod-carrier's  work  will 
be  paid  for  alike — though  it  must  be  observed 
that  in  difficulty  the  teacher's  work  does  not  at 
all  resemble  that  of  the  hod-carrier," '  from  which 
one  darkly  gathers  that  the  teacher  ought  in  justice  to 
get  less.  The  real  point  and  the  true  principle  is 
missed,  that  those  who  have  a  special  gift,  who  are 
consequently  comparatively  few,  must  for  the  general 
good  get  higher  wages,  while  those  who  have  only 
ordinary  capacity  should  get  less.  Extra  difficulty  or 
disagreeableness  or  risk,  in  the  commoner  kinds  of 
labour,  should,  no  doubt,  on  grounds  of  justice,  entitle 
the  labourers  to  higher  wages,  it  is  impossible  to  say 
how  much  higher,  but  hardly  so  high,  one  would  say, 
as  those  in  the  next  grade  of  skilled  labour  requiring 
more  special  natural  aptitudes  ;  certainly  not  so  high 
as  the  specially  gifted  in  any  grade. 

III. 

Let  us  try  this  theory  of  value  and  this  principle 
of  distribution  a  little  further.  Each  is  to  receive 
according  to  the  number  of  hours'  work.  What  is 
the  stimulus  to  an  individual  to  produce  much,  since 
his  wages  depend  on  the  time  he  labours,  not  on  the 
energy,  intelligence,  or  economy  of  his  labour  ?  What 
in  a  particular  factory  is  the  stimulus  to  all,  since  if 

'  "  Co  operative  Commonwealth,"  p.  146. 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  205 

they  produce  more,  its  value  is  measured  by  the 
number  of  hours'  labour,  not  by  the  amount  in  yards 
of  cotton  ?  If  they  produce  much  they  will  fare  no 
better  than  the  operatives  in  a  neighbouring  factory, 
where  they  work  slack.  In  fact,  would  it  not  be  the 
obvious  and  direct  interest  of  all  not  to  increase  pro- 
duction, but  to  work  leisurely  through  the  day  ? 
The  answer  of  the  Socialists  is/  that  if  every  one 
works  slack  there  will  be  less  produce  to  divide  ; 
all  will  get  less.  Very  well ;  all  would  then  only 
be  foregoing  products  for  easy  labour,  so  agreeable 
to  man,  unless  the  whip  of  necessity  is  over  him  ; 
and  all  might  even  become  indolent,  as  in  hot  climates 
they  always  do.  But  there  is  a  direct  temptation  to 
the  members  of  one  industry  to  labour  less,  because, 
if  they  produce  more  than  before,  the  total  product 
does  not  rise  in  value.  It  docs  not  enable  them  to  com- 
mand more  of  other  commodities,  but  only  of  their  own 
products  so  far  as  they  purchase  it.  The  inducement 
at  present  to  increased  production  on  the  part  of  the 
capitalist  at  least,  is  that  for  a  time  the  value  and  price 
of  a  definite  portion  will  remain  the  same,  and  he  will 
profit  by  the  extra  production.  It  would  not  be  so 
under  Socialism.  Scha-'fllc  indeed  proposes  "pre- 
miums "  to  stimulate  to  extra  production.  But  does 
not  this  allow  that  you  cannot  get  good  work  out  of 
a  man  unless  you  give  him  a  direct  and  palpable 
return  for  it  ? 

Another  point  :  suppose  by  premiums  or  bounties 
that  the  product  in  any  given  industry  has  been 
stimulated  ;  suppose  there   is  too  much  produced — 

■  .Schaiffle,  "  Quintessence  of  Socialism." 
12 


206  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

more  than  people  want,  omitting  the  consideration  of 
foreign  trade  for  the  present ; — the  value  of  the 
surplus  would  either  have  to  fall,  i.e.  the  Socialist 
theory  of  value  would  have  to  be  given  up,  or  if 
not,  the  things,  if  perishable,  would  spoil  in  the  ware- 
houses, or  the  supply  of  the  next  usual  period 
would  have  to  be  diminished.  But  how  ?  Less 
workmen  would  be  required  in  that  industry,  or  they 
would  work  only  half-time.  What  would  the  super- 
fluous workmen  do  ?  They  could  not  be  idle.  The 
State  would  have  to  find  some  work  they  could  do, 
in  which  the  product  was  less  than  the  amount  de- 
manded,  and  send  them  to  it ;  or  if  they  objected  to 
move,  it  would  have  to  support  them  wholly  or  par- 
tially ;  that  is,  we  should  either  have  compulsory 
ordering  and  transfer  of  the  workers,  i.e.  no  free  choice 
of  residence,  or  public  support  for  a  time  in  their 
own  town,  or  public  work  would  have  to  be  found 
of  a  kind  that  most  of  the  unemployed  could  work 
at ;  and  thus,  our  chief  social  problem  would  still 
confront  us. 

The  State  could  only  adapt  production  (supply)  to 
demand  in  a  given  industry  on  condition  of  increasing 
or  lessening  the  workers  or  the  hours  of  work ;  and 
it  could  not  readily  transfer  the  workers  from  one 
industry  to  another  at  all,  nor  do  it  to  any  purpose, 
unless  it  had  the  power  of  transferring  them  where 
it  pleased  ;  of  ordering  perhaps  the  superfluous  agri- 
cultural labour  in  Dorset  up  to  the  collieries,  or  sending 
the  temporarily  superfluous  shipwrights  of  Sunderland 
to  the  kind  of  labour  elsewhere  most  resembling 
their  own,  or  setting  them  to  make  chairs  or  tables 


IN   THE   SOCIAIJST  STATE.  20/ 

in  their  own  district.  But  perhaps  the  State  could 
check  the  "vagaries  of  demand,  "  as  the  Socialists 
say,  so  that  the  quantity  required  could  be  kept 
tolerably  steady  without  these  dislocations  of  trades 
and  moving  of  masses  of  labourers.  The  vagaries  of 
fashion  and  of  demand  at  home  might  be  reduced, 
but  not  the  accidents  of  seasons,  nor  the  demand 
from  abroad. 

If  a  harvest  is  defective  say  by  one-third,  the  value 
of  the  whole  representing  the  same  hours  of  labour 
would  be  the  same  as  in  preceding  years  ;  a  loaf 
would  be  worth  one-third  more  as  compared  with 
other  things  ;  but  might  it  not  be  worth  far  more 
(omitting  for  the  present  the  possible  importation 
of  corn)  ?  Could  the  State  so  order  it  that  a  given 
quantity  of  wheat  shall  not  rise  higher  than  one-third 
estimated  in  the  labour  cheques  ? 

What  is  to  prevent  individuals  in  the  supposed  case 
from  buying  an  extra  quantity  of  wheat,  and  selling  it 
later  on  for  far  more  labour  cheques  when  the  pres- 
sure comes  to  be  felt ;  as  some  people  would  be 
willing  to  give  more  than  others  to  have  their 
customary  quantity  of  bread,  and  would  give  far  more 
than  one-third  more  to  secure  it,  especially  would  the 
working  classes  for  whom  it  is  the  chief  staple  of 
consumption.  If  the  Government  fc///^/ keep  the  price 
of  a  necessary,  so  that  it  would  not  rise  more  than  in 
proportion  to  its  deficiency,  it  would  do  good  on  the 
whole,  and  perhaps  we  have  here  a  case  where 
Socialism  would  work  well.  It  is  the  old  attempt  of 
the  P'rcnch  Revolution  times  to  fix  a  maximum  price 
for  bread  ;   the  difficulty  is  to  make  the  maximum 


208  SOCIALISM    NEW   AND   OLD. 

effective,  when  people  in  general  do  not  want  it  fixed, 
and  are  willing  and  eager  to  offer  more. 

However,  this  particular  difficulty  of  a  defective 
harvest  we  have  largely  got  over  by  our  free  import 
of  corn  which  keeps  its  value  pretty  steady,  and  so 
no  doubt  it  might  be  under  Socialism  if  corn  were 
imported  as  much  as  now. 

And  this  brings  us  to  the  question  of  foreign  trade. 
Under  Collectivism  it  would  be  carried  on  by  State 
officials,  and  the  chief  advantages  of  it,  according  to 
the  Socialists,  would  no  longer  be  reaped  by  pro- 
ducers and  exporting  and  importing  merchants,  but 
by  the  community.  No  industry  such  as  the  cotton 
or  linen  would  specially  profit  by  its  superiority. 
The  profits  resulting  would  go  to  the  national 
treasury  ;  from  which  it  might  be  inferred  that  new 
foreign  markets  would  not  be  readily  opened  for  our 
products,  nor  would  our  custom  in  the  old  ones  be 
extended,  unless  indeed  the  State  gave  Schseffle's 
"  bounties  "  to  those  industries  that  did  the  largest 
business  with  foreigners,  and  at  the  same  time  allowed 
a  rather  free  hand  to  its  foreign  agents  and  corre- 
spondents :  that  is,  unless  it  departed  from  its  strict 
principle  and  approached  the  present  system  :  for 
certainly  in  no  direction  are  the  advantages  of  free- 
dom of  industry  and  private  enterprise  greater  than  in 
all  that  relates  to  foreign  trade. 

Another  point ; — the  State,through  a  special  depart- 
ment, will  export  manufactured  goods,  and  must  take 
either  foreign  goods  or  money  in  exchange.  In  general 
only  the  difference  of  value  between  the  total  exports 
and  imports  will  be  paid  or  received,  as  now,  in  gold 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  2O9 

or  silver,  a  certain  amount  of  which  the  State  must 
have  in  reser\'e,  though  the  precious  metals  for  home 
uses  are  to  be  dispensed  with.  When  the  State  sells 
to  foreigners  it  will  be  obliged  to  put  a  money  value 
on  the  products,  were  it  only  for  the  reason  that 
foreign  states  (unless  they  also  are  socialistic,  and 
estimate  values  in  labour-time)  will  reckon  the  values 
of  their  goods  in  money.  But  it  would  be  difficult  to 
reckon  our  products  in  money  once  the  payment  of 
wages  in  coined  money  has  ceased  ;  and  the  compara- 
tive values  of  cotton  and  tea  or  wine  would  have  to 
be  fixed  wholly,  as  they  now  partly  are,  by  comparative 
intensity  of  demand,  apart  from  a  money  estimate. 

What  an  amount  of  confusion  would  result  from  the 
impossibility  of  the  rapid  comparison  now  made  by 
the  money  price  set  on  things  it  is  easy  to  see.  We 
may  safely  say  it  would  clog  the  wheels  of  commerce 
to  an  excessive  degree,  and  that  England  more  than 
any  country  would  suffer  fromit.  Trade  which, between 
countries  using  gold  or  silver,  is  now  barter  of  things, 
obedient  to  a  rule  having  reference  to  money  prices, 
would  become  the  blindest  barter,  governed  by  no 
rule,  but  one  impossible  of  application,  namely  "  com- 
parative intensity  of  demand." 

No  doubt  in  time  some  rate  of  exchange  between 
yards  of  cotton  and  pounds  of  tea  might  grow  up,  but 
it  would  be  a  difil'ercnt  one  from  that  which  would  exist 
if  both  countries  used  money,  and  put  a  money  price 
on  their  goods.  Supposing,  however,  the  tea  acquired 
at  some  rate  and  brought  to  England,  what  is  to 
determine  its  value?  Not  certainly  the  number  of 
foreign    hours    of    work,     the    foreign    labour-time, 


2IO  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

incorporated  in  it.  Will  it  be  the  number  of  hours  in 
the  cotton  goods  that  were  exchanged  for  it  ?  Yes, 
Mill  and  Ricardo  would  say,  for  that  is  what  deter- 
mines it  now  ;  it  is  the  cost  of  production  measured 
in  the  amount  of  labour,  or  in  the  number  of  days  of 
labour  time  in  the  things  exported  which  fixes  the  value 
of  the  imported  goods.  We  will  suppose  the  orthodox 
theory  correct ;®    that  a  certain  amount  of  cotton  and 


'  Ricardo's  theory  of  foreign  trade,  amended  by  Mill,  is  far 
from  satisfactory.     According  to  Mill,  the  value  of  an  imported 
commodity  in  England  does  not  depend  on  its  cost  of  production 
in  the  foreign   country,  but  on  the  cost   of  production  of  the 
exported  goods  given  for  it.     "  The  exchange  value  of  a  pipe 
of  wine   in  England   will  not  depend  upon   what  the  produc- 
tion of    the  wine  may  have  cost  in  Spain,  but  on  what  the 
production  of  the  cloth  exchanged  for  it  has  cost  in  England." 
But  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  value  of  a  pipe  of  wine  in  England 
does  depend  on  its  cost  of  production    in  Spain  measured  in 
motley,  plus  something  due  to  cost  of  carriage,  customs' duty,  and 
importer's  profit.     But  by  "cost  of  production  in  Spain,"  Mill 
means  the  number  of  days  of  labour  spent  in  production  ;  by  cost 
of  production  in  England  in  like  manner  he  means  the  time  taken ; 
in  short,  he  measures  value  and  cost  of  production  by  time  or 
quantity  of  labour,  which  was  the  wrong  theory  of  Ricardo,  cor- 
rected by  himself  into  his  own,    that  value  depends   on    cost 
of  production,  measured  by  wages  and  profits — that  is  by  money. 
The  value  of  the  wine  in  England  does  then  depend  on  the  money 
cost  of  production  in  Spain  ;  on  the  wages  and  profits  which 
fix   its    price   in   Spain  ;   it  does  not   depend  on  the  hours  or 
days  of  labour  taken  to  produce  the  cloth  any  more  than  the 
wine,  both  of  which  would  be  nearly  impossible  to  estimate,  as 
we  have  seen  in  the  text.     In  all  cases  the  money  estimate  or 
price  is  in  the  minds  of  importers  and  exporters,  even  when  they 
appear  to  barter   directly    (supposing   both    countries  to  have 
money)  :  it  is  the  state  of  prices  which  determines  the  ratio  of 
exchange.     If  there  were  no  money  prices,  foreign  trade  would 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST    STATE.  211 

other  goods,  without  any  money,  has  been  exchanged 
for  the  tea  ;  the  total  value  of  the  tea  will  then  equal 
the  total  value  of  the  cotton  and  other  goods,  from 
which  the  value  of  a  pound  of  tea  can  be  found. 
Thus,  if  the  cotton  and  other  goods,  the  result  of  a 
quarter  of  million  days  of  average  social  labour,  have 
been  exchanged  forone  million  pounds  of  tea,  the  value 
of  a  pound  of  tea  will  be  a  quarter  of  a  day's  labour  ; 
or  one  day's  normal  labour  will  command,  or  be  equal 
to,  four  pounds  of  tea.  The  State  may  fix  values  ac- 
cordingly. But  now,  suppose  only  half  the  amount  of 
tea  is  demanded  at  that  value  or  rate.  The  State 
officials,  the  Bureau  of  Trade  would  have  to  lower 
the  value  to  call  out  extra  demand  ;  that  is,  do  what 
changes  in  market  value  now  do  ;  or  if  they  adhere  to 
the  fixed  value,  they  must  import  less  next  year  or  next 
half-year,  which  would  imply  less  exports  of  cotton, 
etc.  It  would  have  to  lessen  purchases,  that  is  lessen 
exports  of  cotton,  and  lessen  the  labour  employed  at 
the  cotton  manufacture,  otherwise  there  would  be  too 
much  produced,  and  values  of  cotton  would  fall  at 
home,  or  if  arbitrarily  kept  up  the  goods  would  not  be 
consumed.  We  have  the  old  difficulty,  or  rather 
impossibility,  of  keeping  values  fixed. 

The  values  of  things  can  only  be  kept  fixed  by 
changing,  in  some  cases,  the  quantity  produced, 
according  as  changes  occur  in  human  fancies  or  habits  ; 
in  Cither  cases,  as  in  that  of  a  necessary  of  life,  like  corn, 
where  a  tolerably  fixed  quantity  is  strongly  desired, 

become  nearly  impossible,  or  would  be  reduced   to  very  small 
compass. 


212  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

and  will  be  had  before  all  else,  but  where  more  than 
that  is  comparatively  useless,  a  deficiency  in  the 
quantity  must  necessitate  a  rise  in  value,  a  rise  in  what 
people  would  be  willing  to  offer,  and  a  superfluity  a 
fall,  and  even  a  rapid  fall — if  all  is  to  be  consumed. 
The  fall  could  only  be  prevented  by  the  State  setting 
aside  for  future  needs  the  superfluity  from  a  pros- 
perous harvest  ;  the  former  could  not  be  prevented  by 
the  State,  because  so  long  as  private  arrangements 
could  be  made  between  parties,  the  persons  with  the 
strongest  desires  would  find  means  to  get  as  much  as 
they  wanted.  The  rise  of  value  might,  however,  be 
mitigated  to  the  general  good  by  the  State's  prevent- 
ing certain  speculators  and  monopolists  taking  advan- 
tage of  the  deficienc)'  and  turning  it  to  their  special 
profit.  Wherever  there  are  rings,  combinations  or  syn- 
dicates controlling  a  necessary  of  life,  who  would  thus 
have  the  power  of  aggravating  a  real  scarcity,  and  by 
acting  on  the  fear  or  imagination  might  create  a 
greater  rise  than  otherwise  would  take  place,  or  who 
might  produce  an  artificial  scarcity, — the  State,  by 
controlling  such,  or  stepping  into  their  place,  could 
minimize  the  evils  of  the  scarcity,  and  prevent  a  great 
rise  of  value  to  the  general  advantage,  especially  if 
it  had  saved  from  former  years.  But  it  could  not 
keep  values  fixed  unless  it  could  alter  human  nature. 


IV. 

Thus,  then,  finally  the  Marxian  theory  of  value  and 
"theoretical  basis  of  Socialism  "  is  vicious  as  a  theory 
and  inapplicable  in  practice  :  the  values  of  things  in  a 


IN  THE   SOCIALIST    STATE.  213 

Socialistic  community  would  have  to  be  arbitrarily 
fixed  by  the  authorities.      Even  when  arbitrarily  fixed 
they  could  not  be  kept  so,  any  more  than  now,  though 
it  would  be  necessary  to  keep  them  fixed,  much  more 
than  now.     There  is  no  principle  of  distribution  con- 
tained  in   the  theory  of  value,   because  to  get   the 
value  of  any  product,  the  comparative  worth  of  the 
different  kinds  of  labour  must  be  presupposed.     The 
values  of  things  cannot  be  pronounced  till  we  have 
already  decided  how   many   times  skilled    labour   is 
more  than  unskilled.     The  principle  of  distribution 
is  assumed,  when  we  lay  down  the  proportion  between 
the  different  kinds  of  skilled  and  common  labour.     If 
my  skilled  labour  is  rated  three  times  common  labour, 
then  my  day's  labour,  or  my  year's  labour,  will  com- 
mand three  times  as  much,  that  is,  the  Law  of  Dis- 
tribution  is  already  assumed,  and,  as  before  said,   it 
must  be  assumed  arbitrarily,  since    there  is  no  com- 
mon measure  of  the  comparative  quantities  of  labour. 
I  by  no  means  say  that  Socialism,  even  in  the  form 
of  Collectivism,  might  not  lay  down  some  principle 
or  scheme  of  distribution  juster  than    the   present, 
and  which  might  be  practically  applicable.     I  only 
say  that   there  is   none    contained   in    Marx's  prin- 
ciples or  in  his  theory  of  value,  while  the  one  vaguely 
foreshadowed  by   some    CoUcctivists    of    something 
like  a  rude  equality  would   be  absolutely  impracti- 
cable, though  if  it  could  even  conceivably  be  carried 
out  by  a  relentless  despotism,  in  which  chiefs  more 
ascetic  than   St.  Just   or    Robespierre,    and    officials 
more  incorruptible,  all  willingly  accepted  the  rule  of 
equal    shares,  and    determined  to    carry  it  out,    the 


214  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND  OLD. 

result  would  be  to  bring  society  speedily  to  poverty, 
and  to  send  civilization  back  to  its  cradle. 

The  equalit}'  would  certainly  not  bring  liberty 
with  it,  still  less  fraternity.  It  would  not  bring  con- 
tentment nor  peace,  assuming  that  human  nature 
had  so  far  changed  as  to  acquiesce  in  the  thing  even  for 
a  short  space  of  time. 

I  by  no  means  imply  that  the  great  inequality  of 
the  present  system  is  all  for  the  best ;  nor  that  the 
existing  distribution  of  wealth,  dependent  partly  on 
Free  Contracts,  partly  on  our  property  laws,  is  ideally 
just  or  perfect ;  far  from  it ;  but  it  is  better  and  juster 
than  the  rule  of  equality  would  be,  which  is 
one  principle  of  distribution  proposed  by  the  So- 
cialists, while  it  is  at  least  practicable,  which  cannot 
be  said  of  the  other  Socialist  principle  of,  *'  To  each 
in  proportion  to  his  works." 

A  better  distribution  than  the  present,  and  having 
more  reference  to  equality,  is  possible,  without  break- 
ing so  completely  with  the  present  system  as  Collec- 
tivism proposes.  It  can  be  done  by  the  State  ;  by 
taxation,  legislation,  and  otherwise,  while  still  leaving 
large  Freedom  of  enterprise,  as  well  as  Freedom  of 
Contract  between  employer  and  employed.  And 
though  equality  of  reward  would  be  bad,  something 
like  equality  of  start  and  of  opportunity  would  be 
good,  and  could  be  secured  for  the  competitors  by 
the  State.  The  State,  moreover,  in  its  own  interest 
and  for  the  general  good,  could  favour  Nature's 
inequalities,  even  at  the  risk  of  levelling  a  little  social 
inequalities  or  the  inequalities  of  fortune  ;  it  could  sift 
out  and  select  Talent  of  all  kinds,  even  assisting  it  if 


IN   THE  SOCIALIST   STATE.  215 

necessary  by  funds  for  the  purpose,  without  looking 
for  any  other  return  than  the  natural  results  to 
Society  of  this  educated  ability.  It  could  even,  by 
extended  State  management,  and  by  an  enlarged 
public  service,  provide  places  for  the  best,  without 
largely  curtailing  private  enterprise. 

A  Society  in  which,  at  all  events,  the  shares  of 
each  would  make  a  nearer  approach  to  "  fairness,"  in 
which  the  evils  of  Freedom  of  Contract,  of  private 
property  and  of  competition  would  be  tempered  by 
considerations  of  Justice,  is  possible,  without  any 
need  of  adventuring  into  the  terra  hicognita  of 
the  Collectivist  State,  in  which  we  should  all  get 
either  equal  shares,  or  shares  fixed  entirely  arbi- 
trarily by  State  functionaries  ;  and  in  which,  while 
much  would  be  doubtful  and  at  hazard,  it  is  most 
probable  that  the  working  classes,  even  with  Rent 
and  Interest  thrown  into  the  general  Wage  Dividend, 
and  the  present  great  Wages  of  Management  of 
employers  cut  down,  would  not  after  all  secure  so 
large  a  share  as  they  do  under  the  present  system, 
imperfect  as  it  may  be. 


2l6  SOCIALISM  NEW  AND  OLD. 


CHAPTER   VII. 
In  the  Socialist  State  {contimted). 

THE  suppression   OF   MONEY   AND   MARKETS. 

I. 

It  is  the  special  boast  of  the  new  Socialism  that  it 
would  effectually  kill  all  the  parasites  of  industry 
which  riot  to-day  under  the  abused  name  of  Freedom 
of  Industry  or  are  sheltered  under  our  property  laws. 
First  would  go  the  landlord,  the  land  becoming 
collective  property,  then  the  capitalist  employer,  who, 
however,  as  regards  his  profits,  is  rather  viewed  as  the 
spoliator  of  the  labourer  than  a  parasite  of  industry. 
Next  will  go  the  mostly  unnecessary  middleman, 
who  interposes  between  producers  and  consumers, 
and  by  his  profits  swells  the  price  on  the  latter  for 
little  or  no  real  service.  Then  by  the  abolition  of 
markets  in  general  and  market  prices,  the  chance  of 
the  general  speculator  and  cornerer  will  be  gone  ; 
by  the  suppression  of  private  enterprise  and  invest- 
ments, and  by  the  consequent  abolition  of  the  stock 
and  share  market  the  financier,  the  company  pro- 
moter, the  director,  the  monopolist,  the  "  rentier"  the 
speculator  on  the  stock  exchange,  and  numerous 
other  types  will  lose  their  opportunities  ;  and,  lastly. 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  21/ 

by  the  abolition  of  money  and  the  money  market, 
the  prohibition  of  loans  at  interest  and  of  all  credit 
transactions  involving  interest,  the  functions  of  the 
banker  and  bill  discounter  and  of  the  money-lender 
will  no  longer  be  necessary.  Money,  credit,  stocks, 
shares,  bonds,  debentures,  will  no  longer  exist,  and 
all  at  present  connected  with  their  manipulation,  the 
"  whole  unclean  brigand  aristocracy  of  the  Bourse," 
as  Schseffle  rather  severely  and  indiscriminately  styles 
them,  will  be  compulsorily  retired. 

And  a  good  riddance,  many  would  say  who  are 
not  conscious  Socialists.  The  question  is  how  far 
such  sweeping  change  could  be  carried  out,  and  how 
far  it  would  be  really  desirable.  In  the  first  place, 
as  regards  the  middlemen,  even  under  Collectivism 
there  would  be  some  required.  There  would  be 
carriers,  and  there  would  be  official  distributors  in  the 
State  magazines,  though  agents,  travellers,  and  the 
advertising  sheet  would  be  unnecessary.  The  number 
of  the  distributors  would  not  be  so  great  as  now  ; 
moreover,  they  would  be  paid  in  proportion  to  their 
hours  of  work,  and  presumably  according  to  ability, 
though  there  would  be  much  less  scope  for  the  kind  of 
ability  that  at  present  secures  large  fortunes,  which 
consists  in  the  various  methods,  good  and  bad,  of 
widening  one's  connexion,  but  for  which  there  would 
be  no  proper  scope  under  Collectivism.  The  distri- 
butors would  be  paid  less,  and  there  would  be  less  of 
them,  wherein  would  lie  the  chief  gain  to  the  public. 

At  the  same  time  it  must  be  noted  that  the  process 
of  eliminating  unnecessary  intermediaries,  of  din)inish- 
ing  the  series  as  well  as  the  numbers  in  each  scries, 


2l8  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

has  been  going  on  for  a  considerable  time,  and  is 
now  proceeding  even  more  rapidly.  Not  only  the 
great  co-operative  stores  and  the  mammoth  "  pro- 
viders," such  as  Whiteley's,  have  reduced  the  number, 
but  at  present,  by  the  formation  of  Trusts  and 
Syndicates,  which  are  at  once  producers  and  distri- 
butors, the  number  of  middlemen  is  being  further 
reduced  ;  the  general  result  being  that  the  displaced 
small  traders  and  other  middlemen  lean  rather  illo- 
gically  to  Socialism,  which  theoretically  condemns 
them,  but  which  at  the  same  time  is  the  general  refuge 
of  all  the  victims  of  the  present  order. 

As  to  the  proposed  abolition  of  money,  I  venture 
to  doubt  its  possibility,  so  long  at  least  as  the  labour 
cheques  are  issued  and  are  transferable.  Coined 
metallic  money  could,  under  certain  conditions,  be 
dispensed  with  in  the  Socialist  State  for  internal  uses, 
as  it  has  been  wherever  inconvertible  paper  has  been 
used  for  money,  and  as  it  even  now  is  largely  replaced 
by  paper  substitutes — bank  notes,  bills  of  exchange, 
cheques,  and  book  credit.  Under  Collectivism  the 
labour  cheques  would  take  the  place  of  money ; 
they  would  be  an  inferior  inconvertible  paper 
money.  They  would  acquire  the  functions  of  money, 
as  at  the  outset  they  possess  its  two  principal  ones, 
that  of  being  a  measure  of  values,  and — if  not  pre- 
cisely a  medium  of  exchange,  as  exchanges  will  be 
nominally  forbidden — at  least  a  means  of  purchase,  a 
means  of  procuring  what  we  desire  at  the  warehouses, 
or  such  services  as  we  need.  The  labour  cheque 
would  be  a  general  order  on  goods  or  services,  which, 
according  to  Adam  Smith  and  Mill,  is  the  essential 


IN  THE  SOCIALIST  STATE.  219 

thing  in  money.  It  would  be  general  purchasing 
power  in  whosesoever  hand  it  may  be.  And  if  the  State 
produces  all  desirable  things,  or  nearly  all  now  pro- 
curable with  money,  and  if  on  presenting  labour 
cheques  in  sufficient  number  I  can  command  any  of 
these  things,  what  more,  it  might  be  asked,  can  be 
desired,  what  more  can  be  done  with  money  now  ? 

The  cheques  would  indeed  be  money ;  but  would 
they  be  good  money  ?  They  would  fulfil  some  func- 
tions, would  they  fulfil  all  ?  Would  they  have  that 
steadiness  in  value  which  it  is  desirable  that  a  standard 
and  measure  of  value  should  have  ?  They  would  not 
possess  this  desired  attribute  of  steadiness.  They 
would  be  liable  to  ail  the  evils  of  inconvertible  paper, 
together  with  certain  indefinite  evils  peculiar  to  them- 
selves. We  have  seen  before  that  it  would  be  im- 
possible to  keep  the  values  of  things  with  reference 
to  each  other  invariable ;  that  the  arbitrary  assess- 
•ment  of  values  according  to  the  calculated  labour 
time  could  not  be  maintamed.  It  is  now  to  be  shown 
that  not  alone  would  values  alter,  but  that  the  labour 
cheques  for  a  day's  work  would  more  and  more  be 
discounted  on  presentation,  whether  at  the  warehouses 
or  to  the  dispensers  of  services.  They  would  procure 
less  and  less.  So  far  as  there  is  saving  and  accumula- 
tion of  the  cheques,  there  would  be  a  constant  increase 
in  the  outstanding  uncancelled  cheques,  and  so  far  as 
they  were  offered  for  services  or  passed  as  money 
from  one  to  another,  that  is,  so  far  as  they  formed  a 
circulating  medium,  they  would  fall  in  value.  More 
would  be  demanded  for  a  given  service  ;  and,  spite 
of  the  good  will  of  the  State  to  fulfil  its  engagements, 


220  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

it  might  easily  happen  that  more  of  them  would  be 
presented  at  a  particular  time,  say  of  deficient  com- 
modities, than  the  State  could  give  the  promised 
equivalent  for,  so  that  it  would  be  obliged  to  discount 
their  value.  So  long  as  any  saving  and  accumulating 
went  on  at  all,  so  long  as  they  passed  at  all  as  money, 
the  State  could  never  be  sure  that  it  would  not  have 
to  discharge  them  by  offering  less  than  their  nominal 
value.  It  could  only  be  sure  if  all  the  cheques  were 
presented  daily  or  weekly  by  whoever  possessed  them, 
and  were  then  cancelled  :  otherwise  the  constantly- 
increasing  outstanding  amount  forced  to  do  duty  as 
money,  not  only  when  services  were  purchased  from 
private  persons,  but  on  other  occasions,  would  necessi- 
tate their  depreciation.  Moreover,  they  would  in- 
crease in  the  hands  of  some  who  would  present 
them  for  payment.  To  the  extent  that  saving  and 
accumulation  went  on  it  would  be  at  the  imminent 
risk  of  depreciation  and  even  of  eventual  repudiation. 
The  cheques  would  be  constantly  increasing,  the 
goods  and  services  not,  or  not  in  the  same  proportion. 
In  fact  immediate  consumption,  or  at  least  imme- 
diate reahzation  of  the  value  of  the  cheques  within 
the  week  or  year  to  which  so  many  other  considera- 
tions would  prompt,  would  be  the  only  wise  policy 
under  Collectivism,  the  future  of  savings,  especially  of 
saved  labour  cheques,  being  so  uncertain,  liable  to 
discount,  and  even  to  repudiation,  total  or  partial. 
There  would  certainly  be  a  great  temptation  to  the 
State  to  apply  the  sponge  of  repudiation  periodically 
to  accumulated  outstanding  cheques  or  obligations, 
because  such  constitute  a  claim  on  it  that  it  could 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  221 

not  meet  in  full  if  many  were  presented  together, 
since  it  has  only  got  the  yearly  revenue  and  the 
inalienable  collective  capital  on  which  it  cannot  admit 
any  mortgage.  In  fact  the  more  the  cheques  accumu- 
late, the  less  could  they  ever  be  discharged  in  full. 
Tliere  would  either  be  depreciation  of  the  cheque, 
which  would  injure  all,  especially  the  average  workers, 
or  depreciation  would  be  avoided  by  a  periodical 
cancelling  of  accumulations. 

But  even  supposing  the  Government  could  escape 
these  dangers,  could  perform  the  miracle  of  main- 
taining stability  in  the  value  of  the  labour  cheque  and 
respecting  private  savings,  there  would  be  another 
danger.  The  money,  the  cheques  would  certainly 
accumulate  largely  in  some  hands,  though  to  prevent 
accumulation  is  the  reason  why  gold  and  silver  arc  to 
be  banished.  It  would  accumulate  not  only  through 
the  inequality  of  remuneration  shown  to  be  neces- 
sary and  even  allowed  by  Collcctivists,  but  also 
by  the  permitted  gifts  and  bequests.  Still  more  it 
would  accumulate  in  some  hands  through  speculation. 

For  there  would  be  speculation,  and  much  specula- 
tion, in  the  Socialist  kingdom.  More  especially 
as  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  persons  from  buy- 
ing more  of  things  whose  value  was  expected  to 
rise,  and  selling  them  or  realizing  them  later  against 
a  greater  number  of  labour  cheques  ;  and  we  have 
seen  that  as  the  value  in  use  of  things  constantly 
varies,  the  exxhangc  value,  or  the  assessed  value, 
must  change.  The  market  value,  which  shifts  with 
the  varying  utility  of  things,  would  still  ideally  exist, 
and  would  be  constantly  rising  or  falling  above  the 


222  SOCIALISM    NEW   AND   OLD. 

assessed,  or  fixed,  or  cost  value.  There  would  be 
private  buying  and  selling  and  speculating,  because 
the  speculative— which  is  closely  connected  with  the 
gambling — spirit  is  so  strong  in  so  many.  Money 
would  be  won  and  lost,  and  the  necessitous,  the 
losers,  in  spite  of  all  prohibition,  would  offer  high 
interest  to  whosoever  would  advance  money  in  the 
hour  of  need.  It  is  even  probable,  so  long  as  no 
interest  could  be  made  legitimately  by  any  investment 
of  money,  that  this  gambling  and  speculative  spirit 
would  be  enormously  increased,  as  it  is  well  known 
that  low  interest  under  the  present  system  tends  to 
encourage  a  speculative  spirit,  which  has  frequently 
issued  in  crises.  What  would  it  be  if  there  was  no 
interest  at  all  ?  There  would  be  no  legal  or  open 
money  market  or  general  market,  no  recognized 
function  of  banker,  and  all  would  be  done  in  evasion 
of  the  law.  But  there  would  certainly  be  speculation, 
and  there  would  soon  be  evolved  an  individual  type 
to  facilitate  speculation  to  speculative  buyers  not 
a  few,  just  as  surely  as  the  bookmaker  has  been 
evolved  to  facilitate  betting.  There  would  certainly 
be  found  a  money-lender,  who  as  surely  appears  as 
there  are  men  in  pressing  money  difficulties,  out  of 
which  the  money-lender  can  help  them  for  sufficient 
consideration.  No  laws  could  prevent  speculation, 
or  money-lending  for  interest,  so  many  people  being 
interested  in  violating  or  evading  the  law. 

Of  course,  as  the  stock  and  share  market  would 
be  abolished,  gambling  in  that  particular  quarter 
would  so  far  be  done  away  with  ;  and  speculative 
buying  and  selling  of  products  would  have  a  narrower 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  223 

field.  But  much  speculative  buying-  and  selling  there 
would  be,  and  much  more  pure  gambling  and  betting 
and  staking  money  on  events  more  or  less  uncertain. 
This  we  can  scientifically  predict,  so  long  as  the 
gambling  instinct  is  so  strong  as  it  is  in  England 
and  America,  and  most  civilized  countries,  so  strong, 
indeed,  that  life  would  be  insipid  to  many  without 
the  excitement  of  gambling,  while  to  the  majority,  in 
milder  form,  it  gives  a  pleasure  and  a  flavour.  Specu- 
lation is  now  mixed  up  with  the  whole  of  business 
and  with  a  large  part  of  life.  Every  race,  every  card 
party  testifies,  as  well  as  the  Stock  Exchange,  to  the 
universality  of  the  spirit  which,  immoral  as  it  mostly 
is,  is  nevertheless  closely  connected  with  and  shades 
into  a  good  spirit— the  spirit  of  adventure,  the  spirit 
which  says,  "  Nothing  venture,  nothing  have,"  or,  in 
Scotch,  "  I'll  mak'  a  spoon  or  I'll  spoil  a  horn," — a 
spirit  characteristic  of  superior  races  and  individuals. 
The  notion,  then,  that  the  spirit  of  speculation  could 
be  stamped  out  under  Socialism  is  chimerical.  Re- 
pressed in  certain  quarters,  it  would  find  other  vents, 
some  of  which  it  is  not  difficult  to  foresee. 

As  there  would  be  no  private  enterprise,  and  no 
possibility  of  investing  our  labour-cheques  so  as  to 
get  a  legitimate  increase  by  way  of  interest,  no  specu- 
lative buying  and  selling,  and  no  partially  speculative 
investments,  where,  by  the  exercise  of  skilful  judg- 
ment individuals  might  make  money  or  get  high 
interest, — there  would  be  a  great  increase  of  wagering, 
gambling,  and  pure  speculation  as  the  only  means  of 
increasing  the  shares  ;  whereas  if  the  State  offered 
interest  and  used  private  savings  productively,  or  per- 


224  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

mitted  private  undertakings  of  a  promising  though 
risky  kind,  there  would  be  less  pure  speculation  and 
more  real  wealth  created.  If,  in  short,  people  can  get 
no  interest  for  savings  and  are  not  allowed  to  invest 
them  productively,  one  or  other  of  two  things,  both 
bad,  morally  and  materially,  will  result  :  either  ex- 
travagant unproductive  consumption  of  luxuries,  or 
speculation,  whether  of  a  wholly  gambling  kind,  or 
such  gambling  as  that  on  the  turf,  where  there  is 
room  for  special  knowledge  and  skilled  judgment, 
which  make  some  certain  of  winning.  And  this  last 
species  would  probably  take  the  place  of  the  Stock 
Exchange  speculating.  Both  speculation  and  un- 
productive consumption  would  flourish,  and  the 
former  would  receive  a  great  additional  stimulus  so 
far  as  the  labour  cheques  were  in  danger  of  deprecia- 
tion, as  we  have  shown  they  would  be.  "  Let  us  eat 
and  drink "  would  be  the  probable  philosophy,  and 
speculation  would  give  flavour  and  excitement  to  the 
banquet ;  though  it  is  no  doubt  also  possible  that 
some  consumption  might  take  the  higher  form  of  the 
purchase  of  pictures,  books,  artistic  furniture,  or  the 
spending  of  more  on  travelling. 

On  the  whole  we  may  say  that  the  well-intentioned 
but  ambitious  attempt  of  the  Socialists  to  suppress 
Money,  the  Investment  list,  and  the  Stock  Exchange, 
would  lead  to  much  greater  visible  evils  than  exist 
at  present,  not  to  speak  of  other  evils  certain  from 
analogy,  though,  without  trying  the  hazardous  experi- 
ment, we  cannot  describe  tliem  precisely.  To  dis- 
pense with  money  was  possible  in  a  small  state  like 
Sparta,  was  largely  possible  under  the  feudal  system,  or 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  225 

under  the  self-contained  village  community  ;  but  the 
attempt  to  suppress  it  in  a  great  modern  complicated 
society,  especially  one  having  a  great  foreign  trade, 
would  be  fraught  with  disaster  and  chaos. 

The  alternative  is  to  correct  the  evils  of  the  existing 
system  ;  to  regulate  the  currency,  especially  the 
paper  portion  of  it,  more  strictly  ;  perhaps,  as  Jevons 
suggests,  to  confine  the  issue  of  notes  to  "  a  single 
central  State  department,  more  resembling  a  mint 
than  a  bank;"'  to  prevent  fraud  and  swindling 
by  Law — by  a  careful  revision  of  the  Companies' 
Act,  perhaps  by  defining  certain  malpractices  of  the 
speculator,  the  cornerer,  and  the  company  floater,  and 
declaring  them  criminal.  The  meshes  of  law  will  have 
to  be  made  finer  to  catch  the  fraudulent,  and  public 
opinion  must  punish  the  shady.  Most  certainly  reform 
is  urgently  wanted  in  this  region  of  business,  and  most 
certainly  nowhere  is  it  more  difficult,  as  may  be  seen 
from  the  failure  of  the  Lord  Chancellor's  bill  of  last 
year,  intended  to  improve  the  Companies'  Act,  and 
in  particular  to  make  the  way  of  the  dubious 
company  promoter  less  smooth.  That  the  pyblic 
require  more  protection  somehow  is  clear,  as  we 
need  only  take  up  any  financial  journal  to  see  that 
shameful  and  seemingly  obvious  swindling  goes 
on  under  the  head  of  company  floating,  and  that 
deception,  gross  as  the  "  confidence  trick  "  practised 
on  the  countryman,  and  of  essentially  the  same 
nature,  is  being  perpetually  practised  on  victims 
perennially  renewed.     And  what    is  worse,    because 

*  Jevons  on  "  Money,"  p.  341 ;  see  also  Sidgwick's  '  Politica 
Economy,"  Book  III.,  ch.  iv.  §  8. 


226  SOCIALISM    NEW   AND   OLD. 

it  affects  much  greater  numbers,  there  is  much 
fine  financing,  evincing  superior  science  of  the 
same  doubtful  kind,  though  far  more  difficult  of 
detection,  and  against  which,  perhaps,  there  can  be 
no  effective  law. 

The  prodigious  and  unparalleled  increase  of  wealth 
during  the  past  hundred  years,  which  still  goes  on, 
and  the  ever-extendinqj  field  of  investment  which  is 
the  result  of  it,  has  given  to  the  company  promoter 
and  many  other  new  types  a  splendid  chance,  as  well 
as  subjected  them  to  a  great  temptation  ;  to  men  of 
business  genius  really  required,  who  are  benefactors, 
as  well  as  to  noxious  growths  who  trade  on  the 
wide  prevalence  of  the  speculative  spirit,  the  covetous 
spirit,  the  eager  desire  to  make  money  with  a 
minimum  of  effort,  or  on  the  ignorance,  the  credulity, 
and  the  general  gullibility  of  mankind.  There  is  not 
only  the  great  field  of  investment  at  home,  but 
English  capital  goes  to  develop  the  resources  of 
many  foreign  countries  ;  and  in  these  various  foreign 
investments  there  has  been  found  more  tempting 
bait.  Here  was  a  golden  opportunity,  not  merely 
for  useful  financiers  of  capacity  and  character,  but 
also  for  the  dishonest  and  fraudulent. 

For  the  financiers  form  a  genus  with  several  species, 
of  which  the  company  promoter  is  one.  And  besides 
the  company  promoter  who  performs  a  necessary  work, 
who  is  a  sort  of  middleman  between  a  few  great  capi- 
talists and  the  general  mass  of  investors,  who  acts  in 
general  as  midwife  and  launches  the  company  into  life, 
there  are  the  dishonest  and  fraudulent,  the  bubble  com- 
pany floaters,  who  form  companies  and  wreck  them 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  22/ 

and  form  new  ones,  deriving  a  profit  from  all ;  who 
form  companies  to  work  mines  in  Mexico,  in  India, 
anywhere,  the  remoter  the  better  ;  companies  to  do 
impossible,  sometimes  imaginary,  things  ;  who  may 
have  the  shares  of  the  imaginary  companies  quoted 
and  bought  and  sold  on  the  Stock  Exchange,  and 
who  may  even,  assisted  by  some  friends,  realize  a 
handsome  thing  before  liquidation  or  exposure.  By 
glowing  prospectus,  containing  reports  from  "our 
working  engineer"  of  the  "most  favourable  results," 
by  a  list  of  respectable  directors,  managers,  bankers, 
auditors,  and  solicitors  of  the  company,  if  any  such  can 
be  induced  to  lend  their  names,  above  all  by  the  un- 
tiring efforts  and  surprising  genius  of  the  financier, 
money  may  flow  into  a  bogus  scheme.  Much  more 
likely  it  flows  into  a  merely  bad  business  or  under- 
taking ;  the  latter  much  safer  and  more  respectable 
for  promoters,  directors,  manager,  etc.,  and  more 
profitable,  as  the  game  will  last  the  longer;  the 
shareholders  will  "bleed  "  the  longer  before  the  in- 
evitable winding  up  ; — and  then  there  is  much  chance 
in  human  affairs  and  in  companies'  fortunes.  The  pro- 
moter in  general  is,  from  natural  temperament,  a 
sanguine  man  ;  usually  he  has  several  enterprises  of 
moment  on  the  stocks  concurrently.  Having  launched 
a  company  and  got  his  fees,  he  is  usually  not  specially 
interested  in  its  future  fate,  which  is  committed  to 
fortune  and  the  managing  director.  It  is  not  specially 
his  affair.  Having  launched'  one  concern,  he  has 
other  schemes  incubating,  others  to  mature  ;  other 
companies  to  found  ;  "fresh  fields  and  pastures  new" 
to  try.     Mis  business  is  to  launch  companies,  not  to 


228  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

make  them  successful,  unless  he  retains  some  shares  or 
other  special  continued  interest  in  the  fate  of  the 
company,  which  is  sometimes  the  case  if  it  really 
promises  well.  He  certainly  has  not  an  interest  in  the 
health  and  success  of  all  companies,  as  it  is  by  the 
creation  of  fresh  ones  that  in  general  he  exists  and 
flourishes. 

It  is  satisfactory  to  know  that  the  Lord  Chancellor 
has  been  deeply  meditating  how  to  "  cabin,  crib,  and 
confine  "  the  genius  of  the  swindling  company  floater, 
as  well  as  to  exact  guarantees  of  the  bona  fides  of  all 
the  class.  But  he  will  have  to  bring  his  utmost  re- 
sources, legal  knowledge,  and  experience  to  bear,  or 
he  will  prove  unequal  to  the  task,  for  the  man  is  a 
genius  in  his  way.  Such  are  the  exigent  conditions 
of  the  problem,  that  it  will  task  all  the  ingenuity  of 
the  legal  profession  to  check  this  type,  and  yet 
checked  he  must  be.  "  If  Law  cannot  do  it,  of  what 
use  is  Law  ?  "  people  will  be  inclined  to  say.  Certainly 
the  Roman  lawyers  never  had  so  difficult  a  problem, 
such  complicated  conditions,  such  peculiar  or  slippery 
types  to  deal  with.  And  what  makes  the  peculiar 
difficulty  of  the  problem  is,  that  it  is  nearly  impossible 
to  strike  an  effective  blow  against  what  may  be  called 
the  Higher  Swindling  without  impeding  or  preventing 
beneficial  enterprises. 

IL 

Besides  the  company,  bogus,  bubble,  or  merely 
bad,  in  which  the  shareholders  are  fleeced  and  lose 
their  capital,  and  where  the  promoter,  directors,  and 
managers — chiefly    the    former,    who     has    a    prior 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  229 

claim  on  the  paid-up  capital — have  divided  the  spoil, — 
there  are  all  degrees  of  struggling  companies,  from 
those  that  pay  zero  dividends  to  those  that  pay  from 
four  to  five  per  cent.  Nay,  there  are  companies, 
and  especially  some  new  syndicates,  which  promise 
dividends  of  from  seven  to  twenty-five  per  cent.,  and 
some  that  actually  pay  them.  How  this  is  possible, 
and  the  nature  of  this  latest  development  of  the  Com- 
pany and  of  the  monopolist  spirit,  for  several  reasons 
deserves  attention. 

These  syndicates  are  phenomena  of  great  interest 
and  significance,  both  in  themselves  and  in  their 
relation  to  Socialism.  The  word  may  be  merely 
another  name  for  a  large  company,  but  is  more 
usually  applied  to  a  union  or  amalgamation  of  com- 
panies in  the  same  business,  or  perhaps  merely  to  a 
union  of  firms  under  one  management.  It  is  always 
more  or  less  of  a  monopoly.  It  aims  at  merging  com- 
petition. But  it  presents  some  important  advantages. 
In  the  first  place  it  tends  to  eliminate  unnecessary 
middlemen,  because  it  frequently  combines  producer 
and  distributor,  e.g.  a  bread  syndicate  proposes 
to  grind  flour,  to  make  it  into  loaves,  and  to  dis- 
tribute the  bread  through  its  own  shops;  thereby 
.saving  the  profits  of  the  wholesale  flour  merchant  and 
of  the  retail  shops.  There  is  a  further  well-known 
economy  coming  from  the  large  scale  of  production 
and  distribution,  the  greater  division  of  labour  and 
employment  of  machinery,  and  from  both  economies 
they  arc  enabled  to  give  better  wages  to  the  workers 
than  they  enjoyed  before.  The  price,  owing  to 
these  sources  of  saving,  need  not  even  be  raised  on 


230  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

the  consumer,  who  would  thus  get  superior  articles 
at  the  same  price  ;  and  so  every  one — the  whole 
closed  circle  of  shareholders,  workers,  consumers,  as 
well  as  promoters,  managers,  and  directors — would 
appear  to  profit  from  the  syndicate.  Nevertheless, 
when  it  has  an  assured  monopoly  the  syndicate  will 
be  much  tempted  to  raise  prices.  It  may  then 
begin  to  seem  less  of  a  universal  benefactor  if  it 
should  try  the  monopolist's  methods  :  the  question 
for  it,  as  for  all  monopolists,  being,  whether  it  is 
more  profitable  to  produce  (or  to  ofi"er  for  sale)  much 
and  to  offer  it  cheaper  so  as  to  get  it  all  sold,  or  by 
limiting  supply  to  cause  a  rise  of  price,  which  may 
enable  the  less  supply  to  be  sold  for  a  greater  amount ; 
and  this  again  depends  partly  on  whether  the  commodity 
is  a  prime  necessary  of  life,  in  which  case  it  would  be 
more  profitable  pecuniarily  to  limit  supply,  though 
otherwise  a  risky  course  for  the  syndicate  to  pursue. 
However,  unless  it  had  a  tolerably  complete  mono- 
poly, it  would  not  be  likely  to  try,  and  so  long  as 
the  monopoly  was  not  complete,  the  syndicate  would 
be  generally  advantageous. 

The  tendency  is  to  increase  the  number  of  these 
syndicates ;  then  to  unite  them  into  larger  ones  in 
each  field  of  production  and  distribution.  Let  us 
suppose  the  whole  field  of  industry  covered  by 
syndicates.  We  should  then  have  economical  pro- 
duction, good  wages,  good  and  unadulterated  products, 
the  needless  middlemen  gone,  and  prices  no  higher 
on  the  consumer  than  before  ;  no  one  apparently 
having  been  hurt  but  the  dislodged  middlemen 
and   smaller   traders,   who    moreover — at  least   the 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  23 1 

latter — have  been  handsomely  compensated  in  the 
purchase  of  their  business,  and  have  most  likely  left 
part  of  the  purchase-money  invested  in  the  improved 
concern.  This  is  a  great  advance  on  the  rude  and 
brutal  method  of  former  times  complained  of  by 
Louis  Blanc — when  the  "  great  capitalist  declared 
war  on  the  little  capitalist,"  and  left  him  dead  upon 
the  field.  The  syndicate  does  not  run  a  race  of 
cheapness  which  ruins  the  small  man,  thereafter  raising 
its  prices.  With  far  superior  science  and  humanity 
it  buys  out  handsomely  the  smaller  man,  who,  with 
part  of  the  proceeds,  remains  a  grateful  shareholder 
in  a  business  he  knows,  and,  if  he  is  specially  able, 
perhaps  even  a  manager  or  director. 

Competition  complained  of  by  the  Socialists  would 
be  largely  gone,  being  merged  within  the  syndicate  ; 
useless  middlemen  displaced  ;  the  employing  capi- 
talist with  his  too  high  wages  replaced  by  a  manager  : 
all  steps  towards  the  Socialist  goal.  What  is  want- 
ing chiefly  ?  There  is  still  the  deduction  from  wages 
of  interest  for  shareholders,  and  the  higher  the  interest 
the  greater  the  deduction  from  wages.  Even  if  the 
working  classes  were  paid  higher  wages  than  before, 
still  if  good  dividends  ^r^  secured  for  the  shareholders, 
it  is  evident  that  wages  might  be  still  higher,  and 
the  old  quarrel  between  capital  and  labour  would 
break  out  afresh  from  this  side.  The  wage-earners 
want  interest  melted  down  into  wages  and  divided 
amon;;st  them,  and  so  long  as  interest  is  paid  the 
Socialist  goal  will  not  be  reached. 

This  state  of  things,  nevertheless,  leans  to  a 
moderate  Socialism,  because  wherever  the  syndicates 


232  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

insisted  on  too  high  dividends  at  the  cost  either  of  the 
labouring  classes  by  reduced  wages,  or  of  the  con- 
sumer by  raised  prices,  they  would  invite  govern- 
mental occupation  and  management  of  the  industry. 
And  wherever  the  syndicates  greatly  abused  their  posi- 
tion as  monopolists  there  would  be  a  likelihood  of 
State  interference  either  to  more  strictly  regulate  or 
to  supersede  the  abused  private  enterprise.  Certainly 
the  State  could  not  permit  what  would  be  a  virtual 
power  of  taxation,  an  imperium  in  iinperio,  if  the 
syndicates  were  sufficiently  extended  to  control  the 
supply  of  a  necessary  of  life.  It  could  not  allow  to 
any  combination  the  power  of  arbitrarily  raising  the 
price  of  bread,  coal,  fuel,  house-rent,  railway  rates, 
and  if  the  combinations  are  ever  sufficiently  extensive 
to  be  able  to  do  so,  and  really  exercise  the  power. 
State  or  municipal  occupation  of  their  enterprise 
would  be  absolutely  necessary,  and  Socialism  to  that 
extent  at  hand. 

All  the  arguments  in  favour  of  private  enterprise 
would  lose  their  force  or  be  inapplicable  in  such  a 
case,  while  the  arguments  against  it  would  be  great. 
It  would  be  a  case  of  a  class  or  an  interest  having 
power  to  tax  the  necessaries  of  the  poor,  as  the 
landlords  had  formerly  such  power  through  the  Corn 
Laws,  and  it  would  be  intolerable.  The  State  would 
either  have  to  fix  prices  according  to  the  supply,  as  in 
the  case  of  wheat  for  example,  or  make  regulations 
forbidding  artificial  limitation  of  supply,  as  in  the 
case  of  coal,  or  finally  take  over  the  production.  It 
is,  however,  only  to  the  case  of  a  prime  necessary 
controllable  by  a  single  combination  that  these  con- 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  233 

siderations  would  apply.  They  would  not  apply  to 
the  production  of  manufactured  goods  meant  chiefly 
for  exportation,  nor  to  things  partaking  more  or  less 
of  the  nature  of  luxuries 

In  any  case  the  promoters  and  all  connected  with 
the  trusts  and  syndicates  should  reflect  on  the  lines 
on  which  they  have  entered.  The  formation  of 
them,  though  the  greatest  effort  of  the  "  promoter's  " 
genius,  is  a  direct  step  on  the  road  to  Socialism.  The 
greater  the  syndicate  and  the  more  successful,  the 
greater  the  invitation  to  State  interference,  because 
it  would  point  out  both  where  the  interference  of  the 
State  was  most  called  for,  and  where  the  manage- 
ment of  the  State  would  be  most  certain  of  success. 
Therefore,  so  far  as  the  Syndicate  conquers  and 
occupies,  let  it  be  merciful,  let  it  not  be  too  anxious 
for  high  dividends,  or  the  State,  a  still  stronger 
Corporate  Person,  may  follow  and  supplant  it  ;  in 
which  way  it  is  possible  that  a  certain  limited  portion 
of  the  Collectivi.sts'  programme  may  be  realized, 
though  for  reasons  urged  elsewhere  the  whole  is 
impossible. 

In  the  meantime  the  fear  of  an  early  syndicate 
conquest  and  overrunning  of  the  field  of  industry  may 
come  over  us  on  too  slight  grounds.  It  is  as  yet 
chiefly  in  breweries,  distilleries,  and  bakeries,  or  in- 
dustries in  which  there  is  a  possibility  of  something  like 
a  local  monopoly,  and  which  have  already  been  more 
or  less  of  a  monopoly  or  a  tacit  combination,  and  where 
the  capital  required,  though  large,  is  mostly  under 
a  million,  that  the  syndicate  has  succeeded.  Where 
it  has  tried  larger  enterprise,  as  in  the  American  Sugar 


234  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

Trust  or  the  Copper  Syndicate,  it  has  come  to  trouble. 
There  is  no  possibility,  for  many  a  year,  of  a  syndicate 
embracing  one  of  our  staple  industries  where  the 
capital  required  would  be  of  colossal  dimensions,  and 
where  the  large  and  prosperous  firms  and  companies 
would  not  join,  having  already  more  profits  than  they 
could  hope  to  gain  by  so  doing  ;  so  that,  although  the 
general  direction  in  which  the  syndicate  and  the  union 
of  companies  tends  is  clear,  yet  the  time  required 
beforQthere  could  be  unified  production  and  monopoly 
in  any  given  large  national  industry,  the  cotton 
for  example,  is  indefinitely  remote.  The  financier 
and  former  of  the  syndicate  may  therefore  still 
console  himself  that  the  Socialist  goal  of  universal 
State  occupation  is  far  off,  while  in  the  meantime  the 
syndicate  is  at  once  an  economic  development  as  well 
as  the  product  of  his  genius,  for  which,  like  other 
inventors,  he  deserves  something,  and  for  which  for 
some  time  to  come  he  will  get  something  con- 
siderable. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 
In  the  Socialist  State  (concluded). 

UNPRODUCTIVE    LABOURERS,    THE   CHURCH,    AND 
THE   GOVERNMENT. 

I. 
We  have  seen  that  the  Collectivists  have  after  all  no 
principle  of  distribution  in  the  sphere  of  material  pro- 
duction ;  that  even  in  that  sphere  wages  would  have  to 
be  unequal  under  penalty  of  general  poverty,  and  that 
the  inequality  would  have  to  be  arbitrarily  determined, 
instead  of  being  as  now  mainly  due  to  individual  efforts, 
good  and  bad,  for  which  there  is  large  scope.  We 
have  now  to  consider  the  great  amount  and  variety 
of  labour  not  connected  directly  or  indirectly  with 
material  production  ;  to  inquire  how  Socialism  would 
deal  with  it,  and  how  reward  the  labourers. 

The  labour  in  question,  generally  described  as  un- 
productive, is  not  only  very  various,  but  some  of  it  is 
extremely  imiiortant.  In  one  form  or  other  it  is  neces- 
sary ;  it  exists  in  every  civilized  society,  and,  though 
in  less  developed  forms,  the  various  types  of  labourers 
have  mostly  existed  in  all  past  civilizations. 

Some  of  the  labour  is,  and  always  has  been,  of  the 
co-operative  kind,  as  that  of  the  military  service, 
which   has    always    been    highly   organized.      Then 


236  SOCIALISM    NEW   AND   OLD. 

there  is  the  civil  service,  which,  though  not  largely 
admitting  co-operative  labour,  is  already  organized 
and  officered  by  the  State.  So  to  a  considerable 
extent  is  the  educational  service  as  respects  primary 
education,  but  not,  in  England  at  least,  as  respects 
either  intermediate  or  university  education. 

More  of  the  outstanding  unproductive  labourers 
could,  it  is  clear,  be  enrolled  under  the  service  of  the 
State,  or  the  County,  or  the  Municipality.  The 
cabman,  the  railway  porter,  the  tramcar  man,  vi^ould 
probably  work  as  well  if  they  were  paid  by  the  State 
or  municipality,  as  at  present,  while  no  individuals 
would  be  making  a  profit  out  of  them,  though  as 
regards  the  whole  class  of  domestic  servants,  the 
"house-slaves"  of  the  Collectivists,  however  their  social 
status  might  be  elevated,  it  does  not  appear  what  great 
gain  to  the  general  convenience  would  result  by  making 
them  all  State  functionaries.  Certainly  the  services 
of  some  of  them  will  always  be  necessary,  whether 
they  will  be  monopolized  by  one  private  family  or 
not.  A  physician  will  require  a  coachman  to  drive 
him  round  to  his  patients  ;  cooks  and  waiters  must  be 
at  restaurants  ;  and — unless  we  live  in  large  buildings 
— in  each  house  there  must  be  a  private  cook  and  some 
one  to  bring  the  breakfast,  make  our  beds,  and  dust 
our  rooms.  Their  status  may  be  raised,  their  wages, 
perhaps,  increased ;  some  of  them  will  be  always 
necessary  ;  and  the  question  is,  would  it  not  be 
more  to  the  general  convenience  that  they  should 
sell  their  services  how  and  to  whom  they  pleased, 
as  now.-*  The  State  might  indeed  pay  to  a  coach- 
man  a    fixed   salary,   to   be   repaid    by    the   hirers 


IN   THE  SOCIALIST   STATE.  237 

of  the  coach  and  service,  instead  of  allowing  him 
to  offer  his  services  by  the  year  to  a  doctor  in 
good  practice,  or  a  high  official  in  the  public  service. 
It  might  desire  to  discountenance  such  luxuries  as 
private  carriages  and  livery  servants,  coachmen  and 
footmen,  or  it  might  wish,  with  the  CoUectivists,  to  pre- 
vent possible  carriage-owners  or  livery-stable  keepers 
from  making  profit  out  of  coachmen,  cab-drivers,  and 
grooms,  by  itself  becoming  the  sole  owner  of  carriages 
to  be  let  out  for  hire ;  but  the  restriction  on  indi- 
vidual freedom  would  be  great,  and  the  prohibition  in 
certain  cases  impossible  to  carry  out. 

In  fact,  the  suppression  of  domestic  servants, 
however  well  intended  by  the  Socialists  in  their 
interest,  would  not  only  be  undesired  by  the  class,  but 
would  imply  a  complete  domestic  revolution,  the  most 
distasteful  of  all  kinds  of  revolution,  and  the  most  diffi- 
cult to  effect,  because  touching  at  the  inner  private  life 
and  at  traditional  habits  and  feelings.  The  abolition 
of  some  species  of  servants  and  the  turning  of  the 
remainder  into  State  functionaries,  would  mean  the 
abolition  of  the  private  residence,  or  would  necessi- 
tate, if  not  the  common  table,  at  least  living  in  large 
buildings  or  hotels,  where  the  lately  enfranchised 
servants  must  do  essentially  the  same  things  as  before 
for  a  payment  of  fixed  fees  to  go  to  the  State.  The 
separate  residence  imph'cs  servants  (who  are  no 
more  house-slaves  than  that  they  contract  to  do 
certain  under.-tood  classes  of  acts  at  the  bidding  of 
another).  Some  servants,  at  leust,  in  the  house  we 
must  have,  as  it  would  be  very  incommodious  to  have 
to  send  frequently  for  officials  to  help  us.     The  nurse- 


238  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND  OLD, 

maid  and  general  indoor  servant,  at  least,  will  have  to 
be  allowed,  even  though  the  private  cook  might  with 
some  inconvenience  be  dispensed  with  ;  and  the  coach- 
man must  be  permitted  to  the  physician  at  least, 
though  many  of  us  might  be  satisfied  with  the  hired 
government  cab  and  cabman.  On  the  whole,  the  Col- 
lectivists  would  be  well  advised  not  to  insist  on  too 
sweeping  or  sudden  changes  in  this  direction,  as  the 
utmost  they  could  do  for  the  class  in  question  would 
be  to  convert  them  into  the personfie/  oi  a.  great  hotel, 
where  they  would  still  be  engaged  in  rendering  essen- 
tially the  same  kind  of  services  as  at  present,  save 
only  that  if  they  be  State  or  municipal  officials  they 
could  with  difficulty  be  dismissed,  while  for  such 
misconduct  or  bad  performance  or  neglect  as  now 
justifies  dismissal  there  would  have  to  be  substituted 
some  kind  of  punishment,  as  fine,  or  imprisonment, 
or  loss  of  grade,  as  in  the  military  service.  There  is 
no  other  alternative  (where  the  power  of  dismissal 
does  not  exist  or  is  not  exercised)  ;  and  were  it  not 
for  the  hapless  condition  of  the  class  in  question 
when  past  the'r  work,  which,  however,  is  capable  o 
being  mitigated,  one  would  say  decidedly  that  they 
are  better  as  they  are. 

As  to  the  professions  under  Socialism,  it  is  clear 
that  some  of  them  would  necessarily  exist  as  now. 
There  would  certainly  be  physicians  and  surgeons, 
schoolmasters  and  professors,  judges,  magistrates, 
and  persons  learned  in  the  law,  even  though  the  law  of 
property  and  contract  would  be  much  simplified,  and 
the  business  of  barristers  and  solicitors  in  consequence 
greatly  reduced.    The  Socialists,  indeed,  expect  justice 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  239 

without  cost,  and  that  advocates,  if  they  exist,  will 
not  be  paid  by  suitors,  but  by  the  State  ;  in  fact,  that 
all  dispensing  of  justice  will  be  paid  for  by  the  State,  as 
it  is  partly  paid  at  present  in  the  salaries  of  the  judge 
and  magistrate.  But  there  will  always  be  truth  to  dis- 
cover, and  difficult  facts  to  elicit,  and  persons  specially 
skilful  in  doing  this  will  be  required,  who  must  be 
different  from  the  judge.  There  will  be  a  good  many 
required  in  spite  of  a  simplified  legal  system,  and 
they  cannot  all  be  State  lawyers  ;  or  if  they  be,  the 
most  skilled,  the  future  eminent  advocates  and  O.C.'s, 
could  not  be  sufficiently  well  paid  by  the  State,  and 
would  be  tempted  either  to  do  their  work  inefficiently, 
or  to  receive  fees  from  one  side  to  induce  them  to  use 
their  ability  in  its  favour,  or  from  both  sides  simply  not 
to  use  it  against  them.  The  danger  of  justice  being 
perverted  would  be  great ;  and  one  way  to  avoid  it 
would  be  to  permit  suitors  to  secure  the  services  of  the 
eminent  advocate  by  olTering  him  his  customary  fees  as 
at  present.  The  system  is  far  from  perfect,  and  justice 
is  frequently  defeated  by  it,  no  doubt.  Still  as 
under  Socialism  and  a  system  of  fixed  salaries  not  on 
a  high  scale,  even  if  there  was  no  temptation  to  accept 
bribes,  there  would  be  a  temptation  for  the  superior 
person  not  to  cx:rcise  his  utmost  skill,  from  which 
the  interests  of  justice  would  suffer,  only  in  less  degree, 
so  that  on  the  whole  the  present  system,  imperfect  as 
it  is,  seems  most  to  accord  with  human  nature  and 
circumstances  of  a  rather  permanent  kind. 

In  general,  in  the  professions  where  individuals 
possess  exceptional  skill,  the  exercise  of  which  is 
in    great    request    by    many,    as     in     the    case    of 


240  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

the  eminent  physician  or  advocate,  the  State  could 
not  with  the  maximum  of  advantage  retain  such  in  its 
exclusive  service.  It  could  not  offer  sufficiently  high 
pay,  and  it  is  much  better  to  let  them  be  paid  by  the 
individuals  profiting  by  the  exceptional  services. 
The  best  ability  will  only  be  drawn  out — such  is  the 
imperfection  of  human  nature  and  human  virtue — by 
permitting  its  possessor  to  reap  extra  pecuniary  re- 
ward from  it,  at  least  in  the  field  of  the  "  bread  and 
butter  sciences."  This  is  the  general  rule  ;  though 
no  doubt  the  State  or  the  public  might  secure,  as 
now,  the  best  services  in  the  great  hospitals  of  the 
most  eminent  in  the  medical  profession  for  moderate 
remuneration,  provided  such  were  allowed  to  devote 
most  of  their  time  to  private  practice  with  its  special 
fees  in  addition  ;  partly  because  the  profession  has 
always  practised  an  honourable  species  of  Socialism  by 
graduating  their  fees  to  the  different  circumstances  of 
the  rich  and  poor,  and  partly  also  because  connection 
with  the  great  hospitals  is  a  mark  of  distinction  and 
success,  which  is  of  use  in  further  extending  practice. 
Every  one,  in  whatever  sphere,  productive  or  un- 
productive, who  has  a  monopoly  of  a  gift  or  talent, 
the  exercise  of  which  is  either  desired  by  the  public  or 
of  great  general  utility,  can,  if  it  pleases  its  possessor, 
exact  high  material  or  money  returns,  with  the  alter- 
native, if  he  does  not  get  such,  that  he  can  refuse  to 
exercise  the  gift,  or  can  exercise  it  imperfectly.  Even 
where  the  monopoly  is  only  partial — in  the  cases 
where  a  few  possess  the  ability — the  like  holds  in  lesser 
degree.  It  lies  in  the  nature  of  things.  It  is  indeed 
possible  that  the  artist  (painter  or  sculptor)  might  be 


IN   THE  SOCIALIST  STATE.  24I 

willing  to  work,  and  work  well,  for  a  fixed  salary  paid 
by  the  State,  the  exercise  of  his  art  being  in  itself  a  plea- 
sure, and  fame  and  the  sense  of  spiritual  power,  an  im- 
portant part  of  his  reward.  Still,  for  a  long  time  to  come, 
so  long  as  the  slowly-dying  Adam  of  egoism,  which 
has  been  much  fostered  under  the  present  system, 
exists  in  the  artist,  he  would  do  more  work,  and  would 
throw  his  energy  and  soul  more  into  it,  if  he  were  paid 
by  the  picture — paid  by  piecework,  in  fact — and  under 
Socialism  there  would  be  nothing  to  prevent  the  State, 
the  municipality,  or  even  the  private  patron,  competing 
for  the  exercise  of  his  skill.  No  doubt  under  this 
system  there  would  be  fewer  portraits  of  private  gen- 
tlemen or  of  aldermen  and  mayors  painted,  unless 
for  presentation  by  the  municipality  or  their  admirers, 
and  it  might  thence  result  that  the  chief  orders  to  a 
greatartist  would  come  from  the  State,  or  from  the  great 
municipalities  emulous  for  good  picture  galleries. 

The  whole  teaching  service,  like  the  civil  service, 
would  fit  into  Collectivism  without  any  great  change, 
provided  that  the  hierarchical  principle  were  duly  ob- 
served. It  is  already  largely  organized  on  Socialistic 
lines.  In  the  higher  and  more  important  posts,  the  pro- 
fessors of  the  sciences,  the  humanities,  or  philosophy, 
and  the  lecturers  in  the  different  practical  faculties, 
might  be  paid  fixed  salaries,  or  better,  partly  fixed  .md 
partly  depending  on  their  fees  as  at  present.  Tiicrc 
might  be  competition  amongst  the  different  universities 
or  university  colleges  to  obtain  the  professor  who  had 
a  great  reputation,  but  it  would  be  desirable,  in  the 
interest  of  learning  as  well  as  in  that  of  the  studeuLs 
t'.iat  his  wages  should  not  be  stinted. 


242  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND  OLD. 

IL 
Doubtless  the  vague  thing  called  literature,  and 
some  at  least  of  the  mixed  multitude  called  literary 
men,  would  exist  under  Socialism  as  under  every 
possible  social  system  ;  nor  does  the  consideration 
of  the  class  or  its  wages  raise  any  very  special 
difificulty.  The  side  of  human  nature  that  literature 
addresses  will  exist  in  future  as  in  the  past,  and 
according  to  all  analogy  and  the  normal  law  of 
evolution,  unless  civilization  retrogrades  or  there  be 
something  in  Socialism  antagonistic,  it  will  expand. 
,In  any  case,  poetry  and  the  relish  for  beauty  and 
truth  will  exist,  tragedy  and  comedy  will  attract, 
the  ever-varied,  but  still  the  same,  human  story  will 
be  re-told.  New  ideas  will  demand  new  expression  ; 
the  power  and  province  of  "  the  word  "  will  increase, 
however  its  priests  and  purveyors  be  paid.  As 
to  the  latter,  as  before  mentioned,  it  cannot  be  said 
that  the  remuneration  or  the  mode  in  which  it  is 
given  is  satisfactory  at  present,  though  there  has 
been  improvement.  Great  as  is  the  service  which  men 
of  letters  may  confer  on  mankind,  great  as  is  the 
power  they  wield  over  the.  soul,  over  the  social  order, 
society  has  not  known  hitherto  how  to  treat  them  in 
the  matter  of  wages,  nor  even  comprehended  their 
true  function  and  significance  under  our  present 
civilization.  Fortunately,  money  is  not  what  poets, 
philosophers,  or  true  men  of  letters  in  general  most 
want,  nor  can  money  ever  be  any  measure  of  the 
value  of  their  work.  They  want  the  exercise  of 
their  function,  the  influence  that  naturally  belongs 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  243 

to  it,  liberty  and  a  competence.  According  to  Shelley, 
the  poet,  wants  "  love  and  fame,"  and  fame  he  gets 
if  he  has  so  far  raised  his  generation  as  to  feel  his 
special  gift.  But  the  better  part  of  his  wages  comes 
not  from  without,  whether  from  fame  or  money  :  it 
comes  from  himself  and  the  exercise  of  his  art,  from 
"  the  great  poetic  heart  worth  more  than  all  poetic 
fame,"  from  the  vision  of  beauty,  the  divination  of 
truth,  and  the  effort  that  is  itself  pleasure  to  shape 
them  forth  as  an  artistic  whole. 

To  find  money  wages  for  the  true  poet  who  has 
not  been  born  with  a  competence,  has  always  been  a 
problem,  and  it  would  probably  continue  so  under 
Socialism,  especially  as  the  poet  in  general  both 
"  man  and  boy  has  been  an  idler  in  the  land," 
and  still  more  as  the  greatest  poets  sometimes  only 
impress  the  world  after  their  death. 

It  is  more  important  for  society  to  know  how  to 
deal  with  the  second  great  class  of  literary  men, 
more  properly  called  philosophers,  because,  let  it 
treat  them  as  it  will,  it  cannot  prevent  them  from 
having  the  final  controlling  word  in  the  great  spheres 
of  religion,  morals  and  politics.  To  re-state  the  true 
and  the  just  in  these  spheres  is  in  fact  their  function. 
The  class  has  existed  under  all  civilizations.  With 
the  Jews  they  were  called  prophets,  and  had  com- 
manding influence.  Under  the  Greek  civilization, 
when  they  first  appeared  in  their  modern  character 
as  searchers  for  truth,  they  also  enjoyed  great  con- 
sideration, so  much  so  that  kings  consulted  them. 
At  that  time,  and  long  after,  they  lived  by  lecturing 
and  teaching,  for  which  their  pupils  paid  them,  as  is 


244  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD, 

still  the  casewith  some  of  their  modern  representatives. 
But  in  modern  times  they  influence  the  world  chiefly 
by  writing  books,  by  which,   however,  they  cannot 
live.     It  is  a  question  what  is  the  proper  function  of 
such  in  a  renovated   modern  society,  and  how  they 
should  be  paid.     Plato,  in  his  Republic,  makes  them 
rulers,   as  does   St.  Simon,  while  Comte  assigns  to 
them,  under  the  name  of  "  positive  philosophers/'  the 
spiritual    power,     reserving    the    temporal    for    the 
capitalist  class,  this  separation  of  functions  being  sup- 
posed to  be  his  great  discovery  in  political  science  ; 
the  real  fact  being  that  the  philosophic  class  cannot 
be  prevented  from  exercising  in  large  measure  both 
spiritual  and  temporal  power,  if  not  at  the  time  and 
in  appearance,  yet   finally  and   in  substance.     As  a 
class  they  exercise  it,  though  not  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  clergy  or  politicians.     As  matter  of  fact,  philo- 
sophy, and  philosophical  criticism,  seconded  by  scien- 
tific discoveries,    have  profoundly  affected  religious 
belief  during  the  past  hundred  years  ;  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  all  fruitful  political  wisdom  for  the  last  three  cen- 
turies has  emanated  from  the  class  in  question,  which 
has  furnished  all  intelligible  theories  of  Government 
and  the  State  ;  the  principles  of  legislation  and  taxa- 
tion ;  of  production,  distribution,  and  trade  ;  of  Inter- 
national Law.     As  a  matter  of  fact,  men  of  the  type  of 
Hobbes,  Grotius,  Locke,  Montesquieu,  Adam  Smith, 
Burke,  Bentham,  Mill,  have  exerted  great  political 
influence    through    their   books    by  impressing  their 
views   on    practical    politicians    and    statesmen ;    as 
a  matter  of  fact,  that  great  thing  begun  in  1789,  and 
still  proceeding,  called  the  Revolution,  was  set  agoing 


IN  THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  245 

by  philosophers  ;  as  the  retorm  impulse  in  England 
was  communicated  by  the  same  class  of  men. 
Lastly,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  philosophers  have  pro- 
duced Socialism  ;  the  three  founders  of  its  three 
principal  forms,  Rousseau,  St.  Simon,  and  Karl  Marx, 
were  philosophers. 

They  are  powerful  for  destruction  as  well  as  for 
renovation  and  construction.  They  cannot  then  be 
prevented  from  exercising  temporal  or  political  power 
of  a  certain  kind,  as  well  as  spiritual,  in  spite  of 
Comte's  prohibition. 

The  class  in  general  is  fitted  for  either  work — its 
individuals  are  potentially  governors  and  teachers, 
though  not  equally  so,  and  as  matter  of  fact,  when 
any  of  them  have  had  the  opportunity,  as  they  have 
had  it  increasingly  during  the  last  hundred  years  in 
England,  France,  and  Germany,  they  have  generally 
shown  themselves  fitted  for  governing,  at  least  for 
counselling  and  legislating  ;  while  conversely  some 
of  the  best  rulers  and  statesmen,  from  the  days  of 
Solomon  and  Aurelius  to  our  own,  have  been 
eminently  of  the  philosophic  temperament. 

Such  being  the  great  power  they  wield,  and  cannot 
be  prevented  from  wielding,  it  is  an  important  ques- 
tion what  should  be  the  acknowledged  relation  of  the 
State  to  them.  At  present  there  is  none  in  particular, 
though,  in  fact,  the  best  of  the  class  usually  find  their 
way  into  chairs,  where  they  serve  the  State  usefully 
by  teaching  the  elite  of  the  new  generation  philosophy, 
moral,  historical,  and  political  science  ;  a  few  enter 
Parliament,  where  they  form  an  important  counter- 
poise to  the  plutocrats  ;  while  a  few  devote  their  main 


246  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND  OLD. 

time  to  the  production  of  books  ;  become  the  whole- 
sale producers  of  thoughts,  of  the  large  new  views  on 
politics,  economics,  and  religion,  which  journalists  and 
essayists  distribute, and  which  politicians  in  part  apply. 
The  philosopher  so  engaged  fills  an  important  function, 
for  which  he  cannot  be  paid,  and  he  is  even  in  worse  case 
than  the  poet,  for,  in  general,  the  greater  his  books, 
the  less  they  will  be  appreciated,  save  by  the  iaw. 
How  does  the  new  Socialism  propose  to  deal  with 
the  class  of  philosophers  ?  It  is  silent,  for  the 
most  part,  on  the  point,  which  is  the  more  remarkable 
as  Karl  Marx  belonged  to  the  class.  It  is,  however, 
probable  that  some  of  the  class  would,  under  Social- 
ism, exercise  considerable  governing  power,  whether 
directly  or  indirectly,  certain  that  others  would 
exercise  their  present  functions  of  teachers,  and  there 
would  probably  be  more  of  them  taken  into  the 
teaching  body.  Whether  the  philosopher  who  only 
writes  books  could  exist  in  the  Socialist  state  is 
doubtful,  it  would  depend  on  how  far  the  taste  for 
books  on  the  severer  but  more  important  subjects 
of  religion,  philosophy,  morals,  politics,  historical 
science  existed ;  in  general,  how  far  the  philosophic 
spirit  prevailed  amongst  possible  readers.  Whether 
the  philosopher  who  attacked  the  principles  of  the 
Socialist  polity  would  enjoy  freedom  is  a  question  still 
more  doubtful,  though  such  freedom  would  be  at  least 
as  necessary  then  as  at  present.  But  however  they 
may  be  treated,  certain  it  is  that  the  Socialists  will 
have  good  reason  to  remember  the  philosophers  if 
they  should  ever  "  enter  into  their  kingdom." 
As  for  the  journal  which,  amongst  its  other  functions, 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  247 

diffuses  political  knowledge  in  a  form  less  abstract  and 
more  readable  than  the  philosophers  give  it,  it  could  as 
well  exist  and  the  journalist  as  well  bepaid  in  a  Socialist 
State  as  now,  unless,  indeed,  all  political  parties  were 
merged  in  a  common  Collectivism,  when  fewer  journal- 
istic organs  would  be  needed,  though  it  is  possible 
that  the  journals,  in  the  meantime,  might  have 
developed  other  functions.  So  long,  at  any  rate,  as 
parties  and  sects  and  separate  interests  exist,  there 
will  be  journals  needed,  and  the  launching  of  these 
must  be  left  to  private  enterprise,  as  the  remuneration 
of  the  labourers,  to  the  subscribers.  The  mere 
bookmaker  who  produces  an  article  that  has  all  the 
outward  semblance  of  literature  would  still  exist, 
if  the  demand  for  his  peculiar  wares  continued. 
The  playwright  would  probably  command  good 
wages  in  a  Socialist  community,  if,  as  is  not  unlikely, 
the  demand  should  increase  for  what  he  produces,  for, 
though  the  art  is  not  of  the  first  order,  it  seems  that 
owing  to  the  need  of  rapid  production  and  novelty, 
the  power  and  the  secret  of  production  to  suit  the 
public  taste  is  confined  to  a  limited  number.  The 
story-teller,and  even  the  novcl-writerwho  occasionally 
rises  to  true  literature,  if  they  should  possess  qualities 
widely  appreciated,  would  probably  fare  well.  Of 
the  forms  of  literature  whose  pay  at  present  is  surest 
and  best,  the  daily  article,  the  weekly  sermon,  the 
novel  and  the  play,  the  second  is  paid  largely  by  the 
State,  the  other  three,  and  sometimes  the  sermon,  by 
the  consumer,  and  they  could  all  in  future  be  paid  as 
well  as  now,  if  the  consumers  should  be  as  numerous 
eis  now,  as  desirous  of  the  commodity,  and  in  par- 


248  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

ticular  if  they  should  have  as  much  means  to  pay 
for  it  under  Collectivism,  the  last  condition  being,  as 
we  have  seen^  a  very  doubtful  point. 

And  the  Church  ?  What  is  the  attitude  of 
Socialism  to  the  Church  ?  According  to  Schaeffle, 
Socialism  is  antagonistic  to  the  Church, and  "out  and 
out  irreligious."  And  this  in  general  is  true,  and  for  the 
antagonism  to  the  Church  there  are  reasons,  one  being 
that  most  of  the  leaders  of  Socialism  do  not  believe 
the  doctrines  taught  by  the  Church  ;  another  and  a 
stronger  one  being  that  Socialists  consider  the  Church 
identified  in  interest  with  the  rich  and  ruling  classes. 
It  is  against  her  in  the  Socialist  records  that  she  has 
not  shown  herself  the  friend  of  the  poor  or  of  the 
working  classes.  Her  chief  function,  they  think,  has 
been  that  of  a  moral  police  in  the  interests  of  the 
propertied  classes,  for  which  function  there  will  be  no 
place  in  the  Socialist  kingdom. 

But  though  Socialists  are  in  general  hostile  to  the 
Church,  there  is  no  reason  why  they  should  be  hos- 
tile to  religion  or  to  Christianity.  On  the  contrary, 
the  principles  of  the  Gospels  and  of  Socialism  are  one 
and  the  same,  and  if  the  Socialists  only  knew  it,  and 
made  the  most  of  the  fact,  it  would  constitute  the 
strongest  plank  in  their  platform.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Church  might  find  a  place  in  the  Socialist  State, 
if  she  laid  the  emphasis  of  her  doctrine  on  the 
Gospels  and  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  rather  than 
on  the  Pauline  Epistles  and  her  own  later  dogmas  and 
accretions,  and  not  improbably  individual  clergy,  like 
Maurice  and  Kingsley  in  the  past  and  others  in  all 
Christian  communities  at  present,  may  in  future  see 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  249 

reasons  to  do  so,  and  if  many  do,  and  especially  those 
who  have  influence  in  Church  Government,  then  the 
Church  might  subsist  in  such  possible  Socialist  State 
and  even  receive  endowment  from  the  State.  And 
so  of  course  she  might,  and  probably  would,  if  the 
many  in  such  a  society  believed  in  her  teaching. 

Especially  if  the  Church  should  assist  Socialism 
to  become  an  established  fact  so  far  as  possible.  But 
the  chances  are  that  she  will  not  or  cannot  take  a 
side  in  her  collective  capacity,  while  permitting  indi- 
viduals to  do  so  who  can  adopt  the  Socialist's  pro- 
gramme. The  Church,  at  least  in  England,  is  in  a 
perplexing  situation  with  regard  to  Socialism,  as  was 
shown  by  her  somewhat  oracular  deliverances  at  the 
Pan-Anglican  Congress  (1887),  at  which  a  number  of 
propositions  were  laid  down  by  a  committee  specially 
appointed  to  report  on  the  subject,  which  simply 
cancelled  each  other,  leaving  a  zero  result  as  her 
collective  counsel  to  individuals,  while  collectively 
not  committing  herself  on  the  Social  Question  and 
Socialism.  Perhaps  after  all  it  was  the  only  thing 
she  could  do,  and  the  wisest  thing  under  very  difficult 
circumstances,  which  require  her  to  conciliate  the 
working-classes  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other 
not  to  alarm  the  interests  of  property — the  powers 
that  be,  and  the  powers  that  may  be.  Perhaps  also 
an  insufficient  comprehension  of  the  question,  its 
delicacy  and  complications,  had  something  to  do  with 
the  ambiguous  and  mutually  destructive  deliverances 
of  the  Congress  with  regard  to  it. 


250  SOCIALISM  NEW  AND  OLD. 


IIL 

A  POINT  remains  to  be  considered.  The  Col- 
lectivists  have  not  clearly  indicated  their  conception 
of  the  State,  as  such,  nor  of  Government  under  a 
Collectivist  Social  system,  and  yet  this  is  the  most 
vital  point  of  all.  In  Plato's  Republic  the  wise  were 
to  rule,  the  brave  to  protect  the  community ;  in 
More's  Utopia,  in  like  manner,  the  wisest  formed  the 
Government ;  with  the  St.  Simonians,  also  Capacity 
was  to  direct — who  are  to  be  rulers  under  the  new 
Socialism,  and  of  what  kind  is  to  be  the  Govern- 
ment ? 

Though  the  Collectivists  are  rather  reticent  on  the 
point,  we  can  see  clearly  that  of  logical  necessity  the 
government  must  be  essentially  democratic  :  whether 
the  executive  authority  be  delegated  to  a  chosen  one,so 
as  to  form  a  kind  of  Democratic  Caesarism,  or  whether 
it  be  conferred  on  a  body,  remains  uncertain,  though  the 
tendency  of  their  principles  is  to  the  latter.  That  it 
must  be  democratic  may  be  inferred  further  from  the 
principles  of  Karl  Marx,  as  also  from  the  name  of 
Social  Democrats  that  German,  English  and  Ameri- 
can Socialists  most  affect. 

In  the  Collectivist  State  an  aristocracy  resting  on 
the  ownership  of  land  will,  of  course,  be  impossible : 
for  like  reasons  a  plutocracy  could  not  exist,  since 
capital  as  well  as  land  will  be  collectively  owned,  and 
the  highest  salaries  only  moderate  in  amount.  The 
Capitalist  in  all  his  forms,  whether  the  great  employer 
of  labour,  the  great  distributor,  the  great  financier  or 
monopolist,  will  have  disappeared.     There  will  be  no 


IN  THE  SOCIALIST  STATE.  25 1 

aristocracy,  whether  of  land  or  money.  The  classes 
will  have  found  their  level  in  the  masses,  the  former 
being  brought  down,  the  latter  somewhat  exalted, 
and  if  any  distinction  of  rank  remain  (and  some,  it 
would  appear,  is  to  be  allowed)  it  must  have  reference 
to  difference  of  capacity. 

But  there  must  still  be,  we  should  imagine,  a  govern- 
ing class,  though  not  hereditary.  There  must  be,  if 
not  legislators  (the  Socialists  affirming  that  few  laws 
will  be  needed,  and  that  these  will  require  the  general 
sanction),  at  least  administrators  as  now;  an  adminis- 
tration let  us  say,  composed  of  some  ten  or  a  dozen 
Ministers  or  Secretaries  of  State  for  the  principalde- 
partments  of  State  activity,  as  War,  Finance,  Justice, 
Education,  the  Colonies  (if  any  connection  be  re- 
tained with  them),  Trade,  Agriculture,  etc.  There 
must  also  be  permanent  Under-Secretaries  of  the  Exe- 
cutive Government,  there  must  be  Judges  and  a  Chief 
Justice  ;  and  as  the  functions  of  the  State  will  be 
greatly  extended  to  embrace  all  industries — agricul- 
tural, mining,  manufacturing,  carrying — there  must 
be  new  Ministers  and  Secretaries,  new  Heads  of 
Departments, — new  Generals,  in  addition  to  the 
officers  and  private  soldiers  in  the  industrial  armies. 
Who  arc  these  different  Meads  to  be  ? 

Karl  Marx,  the  founder  of  Collectivism,  has  not 
designated  who  arc  to  be  the  governors,  nor  how  they 
are  to  be  found,  but  presumably  they  will  be  the 
most  capable,  as  with  the  St.  Simonians.  Still  it  is  a 
pity  that  neither  he  nor  his  followers  have  been  more 
explicit  on  this  important  point. 

Mr.    Gronlund,  indeed,  denies  that   there  will    be 


252  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

any  governing  required,  or  any  governing  classes. 
"  The  whole  people  does  not  want  or  need  any 
governing  at  all,"  he  affirms, — a  proposition  that 
looks  anarchical  ;  but,  as  he  adds,  "  it  wants  simply 
administration — good  administration,^'  it  appears  that 
he  is  merely  using  the  word  government  in  the  narrow 
sense  of  class  rule  and  exclusive  of  administration 
which,  nevertheless,  has  always  been  considered  as 
the  most  important  part  of  government.  In  the 
Socialist  State  the  Heads  of  Departments,  according 
to  him,  would  form  the  Executive  Government  for 
the  time  being,  and  as  these  would  be  more  numerous 
than  now,  and  besides  would  have  a  greater  mass  of 
matters,  indeed,  the  totality  of  human  affairs,  on  their 
shoulders  and  depending  on  their  wisdom  and  virtue, 
we  fear  after  all,  in  spite  of  assurances  to  the  contrary, 
that  there  would  be  a  good  deal  of  government  and 
even  of  issuing  of  "  commands,"  whether  called  laws, 
rescripts,  decrees,  or  whatever  name  does  not  matter. 
The  "Omniarchs,"  as  Fourier  and  Leroy-Beaulieu  call 
them,  would  have  much  depending  on  thern:  it  would 
be  wisdom  on  the  part  of  the  many  to  let  them  have 
a  rather  free  hand.  But  how,  under  Socialism, 
are  these  important  Heads  or  Chiefs  of  Depart- 
ments to  be  discovered  ?  How  to  get  the  wise  and 
virtuous  to  the  top  is  the  real  and  never  yet  solved 
problem.  States  will  never  be  happy,  Plato  tells  us, 
till  philosophers  rule  or  rulers  are  philosophers,  i.e. 
wise  men.  How  to  get  the  wise  and  capable  riddled 
to  the  top  is  the  question.  The  author  of  the 
"  Co-operative  Commonwealth  "  has  at  least  a  plan  to 
piopose,  though  he  admits  that  it  does  not  bind  other 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  253 

Socialists.  The  chiefs  are  to  be  the  result  of  a  series 
of  selections — the  select  of  the  select.  In  this  wise : 
In  a  given  industry,  the  ordinary  workers  choose 
their  foreman,  the  foremen  in  like  manner  their  super- 
intendent, or  Carlyle's  Captain  of  Industry;  all  the 
chiefs  in  a  given  district  elect  a  district-superinten- 
dent, and  the  district-superintendents  from  all  parts 
of  the  country  meet  and  elect  a  bureau-chief,  and  he, 
with  other  bureau-chiefs  in  connected  industries, 
proceed  to  elect  a  Chief  of  Department. 

15y  this  process  ol  subtle  distillation  you  surely  get 
your  best  man  in  one  branch  of  industry,  as  boot- 
making  (to  take  the  example  cited)  ;  you  proceed 
in  the  same  manner  with  every  other  special  branch 
of  industry,  manufacturing,  mining,  agricultural.  You 
get  a  Chief  of  Department  in  the  cotton  trade,  in 
the  hosiery,  the  tailoring,  the  farming,  the  mining, 
and  other  industries.  In  the  same  way  you  get  the 
wisest  one  in  the  teaching  body  ;  "  then  one  for  the 
physicians,  another  for  the  judges,  one  or  more 
chiefs  for  transportation,  one  or  more  for  commerce — 
in  fact,  suppose  there  is  not  a  social  function  that 
does  not  converge  in  some  way  in  such  Chief  of 
Department."  ' 

Here  we  have  the  great  secret.  These  Chiefs,  and 
not  too  many  of  tlicm,  are  to  form  the  executive, 
greatly  widened  as  it  is  to  be  in  its  functions.  It 
would  appear  that  the  representatives  of  the  boot- 
making,  tailoring,  and  other  interests  will  necessarily 
be  numerous,  if  we  judge  by  the  great  numbt  r  of 
specialized  industries,  though  we  cannot  discover  any 

*  "Co-operative  Comii)oin\calth,'  p.  173. 
14 


254  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

great  qualifications  for  ruling  in  their  chiefs  unless  the 
ruling  and  directing  be  confined  to  what  relates  to 
boot-making,  tailoring,  etc.  If  there  are  to  be  philo- 
sophers in  the  body,  perhaps  they  will  be  found  in  the 
representative  of  the  teachers,  or  of  the  judges,  or  of 
the  literary  class,  or  of  the  savants  ;  they  would,  how- 
ever, be  considerably  outvoted  unless  we  reduce  all  the 
industrial  chiefs  from  many  to  one  or  a  few  in  each 
industry,  and  then  there  would  be  the  certainty  that 
such  would  not  be  much  wiser  than  any  other  of  the 
diff'erent  chiefs  in  any  branch  of  industry  outside  their 
own  ;  that,  for  instance,  the  chosen  in  the  leather  trade, 
whether  raw,  tanned,  or  made  into  boots,  would  know 
little  about  the  needs  of  the  cotton,  the  hosiery,  the 
iron  and  steel,  the  ship-building,  mining,  and  a 
hundred  other  industries,  while,  as  respects  interests 
other  than  industrial,  they  would  have  still  less 
comprehension. 

An  able  man  of  business  you  may  select  in  this  way, 
an  able  administrator  of  the  post-office,  the  telegraphs, 
or  a  minister  of  agriculture;  but  hardly,  unless  from 
the  lawyer  or  philosophic  class,  a  statesman,  who,  in 
addition  to  natural  genius,  requires  a  different  previous 
training;  in  particular  the  study  of  history,  of  political 
science,  and  of  human  nature. 

However  this  be,  at  all  events  a  complete  political 
revolution  is  implied  :  a  revolution  in  the  govern- 
ment of  every  existing  State,  and  a  total  change 
in  the  conception  of  the  State,  in  addition  to 
the  sweeping  economic  revolution,  and  the  revo- 
lution in  private  life  that  the  changed  economic 
relations  would  bring.     It  is  admitted   by  Socialists 


IN  THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  255 

that  their  scheme  is  incompatible  with  existing  govern- 
ments and  as  the  latter  are  not  likely  to  change 
quickly  enough  of  their  own  impulse  in  a  Socialistic 
direction,  a  revolution  in  fact  as  well  as  in  idea,  and 
probably  a  violent  struggle,  will  be  necessary. 

Now  a  revolution  is  a  possible  thing,  and  a  success- 
ful revolutionary  government  might  be  installed.  The 
thing  has  been  before.  The  government  might  be 
animated  with  Socialistic  principles,  and  it  might  de- 
cree the  confiscation  of  land  and  capital.  It  might  take 
both  from  the  present  possessors,  without  any  com- 
pensation, or,  more  mercifully,  it  might  give  them 
partial  compensation,  not  in  money,  but  in  labour 
cheques,  to  be  presented  against  consumable  goods,' 
most  of  which  would  be  of  no  use.  Interest  might 
be  forbidden,  salaries  cut  down,  production  con- 
trolled, prisons  might  even  be  filled,  and  htads 
cut  off,  but  a  universal  collectivism  would  not  work  ; 
it  would  be  found  impracticable  because  contrary 
to  human  nature  in  certain  directions,  and  in  others 
where  it  would  be  practicable  it  would  be  dis- 
covered to  be  bad  for  the  general  weal.  The  ablest 
and  most  energetic  would  revolt  against  it ;  they 
would  probably  carry  the  many  with  them  after  a 
short  experience  of  the  new  system.  There  would 
be  general  chaos,  and  out  of  that  chaos,  in  all  i^ro- 
bability,  a  strong  and  successful  soldier  would  arise 
(perhaps  from  the  government  itself)  to  compel 
order,  with  the  strong  hand.  It  would  indeed  be 
the  best  and  the  only  way  out  of  the  difficulty; 
and  the  thing  has  happened  so  invariably  in  like 
*  Schaeffle's  "  Quintessence  of  Socialism,"  p.  33. 


256  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

cases  that  we  may  now  almost  regard  it  as  a  scientific 
law.      But    history    does    indeed    also   suggest   the 
possibility    that   out   of  civil    commotions    and    re- 
volutions   a    great    man     might    arise,    a     man    ot 
genius  and  virtue,  who  in  re-establishing  order  might 
found  and  establish  something  of  permanent  advan- 
tage to   the  general  weal,  might  in  particular  effect 
chancres  for  the   better  in   the   relation   of  classes—- 
economic  and  social  changes — a  thing  more  possible 
to  one  man  of  great  capacity  than  to  a  body,  whether 
Parliament,  Congress,  or  Chamber  of  Deputies.     The 
latter,  indeed,  in  times  of  revolution  could  not  do  it  ; 
the  former  might.     This  would  be  the  only  chance  for 
the  Revolutionary  Socialists ;  and  a  remote  one,  for  the 
man  would  require  almost  superhuman  power  as  well 
as  wisdom  and  virtue,  should  be  a  sort  of  earthly  Deity, 
in  fact,  to  do  the  work.     To  establish  universal  Col- 
lectivism would  indeed  be  beyond  the  power  of  even 
such  a  one,  unless  he  could  reverse  the  laws  of  nature, 
but  something  less,  though  something  considerable,  in 
the  general  Socialist  direction,  he  might  do  and  sooner 
and  more  fully  than  a  Representative  Assembly.    And 
such  a  one  of  extraordinary  will  and  genius,  though 
only  of  ordinary  virtue,  did  arise  out  of  the   Great 
Revolution  in  Napoleon,  who  did  put  into  his  Code 
much  that  was  practicable  and  permanently  desirable, 
and  who  had  the  large  idea  that  the  career  should  be 
open  in  every   field   to  talent  ;  the  Napoleonic   ideas 
being    in     fact    largely    akin    to    St.    Simonism,   as 
Roscher  says,  and   really  carrying  out  the  best  and 
most  practicable  parts  of  it. 

But    Revolution    should    not   be   invoked    on   the 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  257 

remote  chance  that  a  Deity  would  be  found  in  the 
whirlwind  any  more  than  in  the  hope  that  an  im- 
possible social  system  could  be  forcibly  founded  by 
an  Assembly,  because  the  Csesar  who  might  arise 
would  far  more  likely  not  be  of  large  capacity,  or  he 
might  even  prove  a  reactionary.  He  might  find  the 
forces  of  reaction  too  strong  for  him,  even  supposing 
bim  to  have  the  best  intentions  to  favour  the  socialist 
ideas,  or  he  might  be  opposed  to  them  ;  so  that,  all 
things  considered,  the  leaders  of  the  working  classes 
would  do  better  in  pushing  for  reforms  and  practicable 
ameliorations  in  their  condition  through  existing 
constitutional  means  rather  than  in  putting  all  at 
hazard  by  attempting  a  violent  revolution  more  likely 
to  throw  back  their  cause  than  to  advance  it. 

Even  by  so  doing  it  may  not  be  possible  to  avoid 
revolution  in  the  end  ;  because  in  the  assertion  of  the 
cause  of  the  Fourth  Estate  revolution  may  come  from 
class  antagonisms,  as  it  came  in  France  after  1789 
from  the  aspiring  efforts  of  the  Third  Estate  ;  but  if 
it  came  in  this  way  it  would  be  in  the  natural  order  of 
things,  and  the  responsibility  for  it  would  not  lie  solely 
with  the  working  class,  but  would  be  shared  by  the 
uncompromising  defenders  of  the  present  order.  And 
it  may  be  added  that  the  only  kind  of  revolution  by 
which  the  cause  of  labour  would  be  likely  to  make  any 
permanent  advance  would  be  such  a  natural  revolution, 
which  need  not  necessarily  be  a  bloody  one. 

IV. 
We  may  here  sum  up  the  chief  conclusions  -reached 
respecting  Collectivism,  the  latest  scheme  of  an  Ideal 


258  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

Commonwealth,  and  pronounce  a  final  estimate  upon 
it.  As  a  scheme,  while  partly  agreeing  with  the  St. 
Simonian,  it  is  distinctly  inferior  to  the  latter  in  not 
fully  recognizing  inequality  of  capacity  and  frankly 
accepting  as  the  natural  consequences  of  the  fact, 
inequality  of  remuneration,  especially  in  the  sphere 
of  material  production.  With  really  fuller  economical 
knowledge  than  St.  Simonism,  it  is  yet  essentially 
weak  on  the  economical  side  where  it  should  be 
specially  strong,  and  where  it  specially  boasts  of  its 
strength. 

Its  criticism  of  capital,  though  partly  sound,  is 
largely  fallacious.  Its  constructive  scheme,  so  far 
as  any  has  been  given,  is  unworkable  in  parts,  in 
others  of  doubtful  tendency,  in  others,  again,  of  bad 
tendency.  The  detached  propositions  which  form 
the  essence  of  it  cannot  cohere  into  a  system.  Its 
parts  cannot  be  put  together  so  as  to  form  a  whole 
that  would  work.  Productive  labour  could  not  all  be 
collectively  organized,  still  less  unproductive.  Agri- 
cultural labour  could  not  be  collectively  organized, 
though  land  might  be  collectively  owned.  The 
numerous  small  detached  industries  where  not  much 
capital  is  needed  could  not  with  advantage  be  worked 
by  the  State.  There  is  much  labour  that  might  be 
brigaded,  though  not  suited  for  collective  action  in  a 
given  place  or  at  the  same  time,  and  the  only  thing 
to  be  said  in  favour  of  State  organization  and  pay- 
ment is  that  it  would  prevent  private  exploitation, 
though  it  would  probably  also  open  the  door  for 
official  corruption  and  misappropriation  of  funds. 

As  regards  Distribution,  we  have  seen  that  anything 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  259 

approaching  equalization  of  wages  there  could  not 
be  without  resulting  in  diminished  production  and 
inferior  services,  especially  those  of  the  higher  sort. 
The  industrial  chief  in  particular  will  have  to  be  paid 
liberally,  or  the  product  will  be  worse  in  quality  as 
well  as  less  in  quantity.  On  grounds  of  justice  no 
less  than  of  policy,  the  superior  manager  deserves 
extra  wages  whenever  the  increase  in  quantity  or 
quality  is  due  to  his  superior  energy  and  ability. 
Mere  policy  would  dictate  sufficient  payment  to  make 
him  use  all  his  energy  and  ability,  at  least  until  new 
and  higher  motives  can  act  upon  him.  Extra  merit 
in  the  generality  of  workers,  for  the  like  reasons,  would 
have  to  be  paid  higher,  or  production  would  suffer. 
More  than  all,  the  great  inventors  of  machines  and  dis- 
coverers of  new  processes  of  production,  the  Watts, 
Bessemcrs,  Edisons,  as  well  as  the  great  engineers, 
the  Stephensons  and  Lessepses,  the  men  who  almost 
at  one  stroke  make  a  comprehensive  addition  to  the 
sum  of  wealth  or  store  of  material  utilities,  will  have 
to  be  specially  encouraged,  or  if  not  their  country 
and  the  world  will  be  the  poorer. 

We  have  seen,  too,  that  certain  professions,  as  the 
medical  and  the  legal,  could  not  be  adequately  or 
conveniently  paid  by  the  State  ;  that  the  most  skilled 
members  at  least  would  have  to  be  permitted  private 
practice  and  to  charge  additional  fees,  in  the  interests 
of  the  general  health  or  of  justice  ;  that  the  artist,  the 
actor,  the  public  singer,  the  popular  novelist  or  poet — 
all  who  possess  an  exceptional  gift  the  exercise  of 
which  is  greatly  valued — could  not  conveniently  or 
with  advantage  be  paid  by  the  State,  without  at  least 


260  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

a  partial  quenching  of  the  gift  and  loss  or  privation 
to  the  public. 

As  respects  the  theory  of  value,  we  have  found 
that  it  would  be  impossible  to  determine  values  in 
practice  by  the  cost  in  labour-time ;  that  even  if 
values  were  so  determined  by  the  most  heroic  book- 
keeping and  arbitrary  reduction  of  skilled  labour  to 
common  labour,  it  would  be  impossible  to  keep  values 
fixed  ;  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  prevent  market 
or  variable  values,  unless  the  State  exercised  arbi- 
trary and  extraordinary  powers-  in  the  extension  or 
contraction  of  production  and  in  the  transfer  of 
labourers  from  place  to  place.  We  have  seen,  too, 
that  the  Collectivists  have  no  self-acting  law  of  distri- 
bution, that  the  share  of  each  under  their  supposed 
law  would  be  entirely  arbitrary  and  probably  unjust. 

The  proposed  abolition  of  money  in  like  manner 
would  be  largely  nugatory,  owing  to  the  existence  of 
the  labour-cheques,  while  the  labour-cheques,  in  addi- 
tion to  their  liability  to  indefinite  depreciation,  with 
all  the  evils  and  injustices  which  depreciation  brings, 
would  also  be  liable  to  evils  peculiar  to  themselves, 
not  specially  predictable  without  experience,  but  cer- 
tain in  some  form  in  so  far  as  the  labour-cheques 
would  differ  from  inconvertible  paper-money  in 
general. 

We  have  seen,  too,  that  foreign  trade  would  be 
impossible  without  surrendering  '  the  collectivist 
principle,  and  the  destruction  of  foreign  trade  would 
be  ruinous  to  a  country  like  England.  The  Socialists 
are  generally  silent  on  the  point,  or,  when  they  do 
speak  of  it,  they  decry  its   advantages,  obvious  as 


IN  THE  SOCIALIST   STATE.  26 1 

many  of  them  are  ;  from  a  dim  perception  that  it  is  a 
weak  point  in  their  system,  though  it  is  in  reah'ty 
wholly  incompatible  with  it.  Now  this  is  a  case 
where  the  working-classes  of  England  at  least  should 
know  the  true  doctrine,  and  how  deeply  their  in- 
terests are  bound  up  with  foreign  trade,  without 
which  England  could  not  possibly  support  anything 
like  her  present  population,  and  the  abolition  of 
which  under  Collectivism  would  be  to  the  same  ex- 
tent injurious.  The  Socialists  are  perhaps  to  be 
excused  for  not  seeing  the  full  advantages  of  trade 
since  even  Mill,  who  makes  the  consumer  the  chief 
gainer  by  it,  in  getting  cheap  goods  or  things  not 
otherwise  procurable,  represents  only  one  aspect  of 
its  benefits,  the  chief  being  that  it  makes  room  in 
a  small  country  like  England  with  limited  land  for 
a  much  larger  population  than  would  be  possible 
without  it,  by  the  exchange  of  manufactures  for 
labourers'  necessaries.  No  doubt  it  also  enables 
merchants  and  producers  to  make  fortunes,  and  rich 
people  to  get  luxuries  ;  but  it  also  enlarges  the 
absolute  amount  given  to  the  labouring-class  if  not 
individual  wages  as  well  ;  so  that  the  Socialists  are 
much  mistaken  when  they  imagine  that  if  foreign 
trade  were  abolished,  English  labour  would  be  as 
effectively  applied,  or  could  support  so  many  as  at 
present,  or  support  them  so  well.  The  abolition  of 
foreign  trade  might  not  greatly  affect  the  United 
States  of  America,  simply  because  the  United  States 
is  virtually  a  continent,  having  most  of  the  advan- 
tages of  foreign  trade  under  the  name  of  home  trade; 
though  even  America  finds  it  to  her  advantage  to 


262  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

export  the  corn  she  so  easily  raises  for  things  she 
cannot  produce  at  all,  like  tea,  or  produces  with 
difficulty,  like  certain  manufactured  goods. 

On  the  whole,  we  may  say  that  universal  Collec- 
tivism is  an  impossible  cure  for  the  evils  most  com- 
plained of ; — for  the  overlarge  share  of  the  produce 
of  capital  and  labour  which  the  employing  capitalist 
gets  ;  and  next  for  the  undue  share  that  landlords, 
distributors,  speculators,  monopolists,  and  all  kinds 
of  parasites  are  enabled  to  obtain  ;  while  those  parts 
of  the  scheme  to  which  there  is  no  objection,  but  the 
reverse,  such  as  an  extension  of  State  management  in 
the  industrial  sphere  in  the  case  of  monopolies ;  a 
further  extension  by  consequence  of  the  Civil  Service  ; 
a  more  complete  organization  of  the  educational 
service,  regulation  of  the  currency  and  of  banking 
with  other  legislation  to  check  speculation ; — these 
things  are  not  peculiar  to  Collectivism,  but  are  most 
of  them  parts  of  a  State-Socialism  already  in  opera- 
tion, and  to  all  of  which  there  is  a  spontaneous  ten- 
dency. What  is  not  possible — at  least  for  ages,  if  not 
for  ever — is  universal  State  enterprise,  the  abolition  of 
money  and  of  interest,  or  the  distribution  of  wealth 
according  to  hours  of  work  or  anything  approaching 
a  general  equalizing  of  wages. 

Now,  considering  all  the  gaps  in  Collectivism,  the 
necessary  deductions  from  its  principles,  how  much 
of  the  present  system  must  be  retained  and  how 
much  of  its  own  must  be  given  up,  considering 
the  perils  of  any  attempt  at  realizing  it,  the  question 
indeed  arises  whether  it  would  not  be  better  to  begin 
at  the  other  end,  at  the  end  near  our  hand,  by  improv- 


IN   THE   SOCIALIST   STATE.  263 

ing  the  existing  system  ;  especially  as  Collectivism, 
minus  the  things  that  it  must  give  up,  approximates 
to  an  improved  individualistic  system  ?  Would  it  not 
be  better  to  begin  where  the  social  shoe  pinches  ? 
Nay,  no  other  course  can  be  entertained  for  a  moment, 
as  any  attempt  to  set  up  universal  Collectivism  would 
be  madness,  and  the  fall  into  the  abyss  of  chaos  sure. 

Our  whole  existing  system  rests  upon  human 
nature,  is  a  product  of  average  human  nature,  is  merely 
the  outward  expression  of  the  most  general  facts  of 
human  nature,  such  as  the  science  of  psychology  to-day 
reveals  it;  especially  is  it  the  product  of  the  self-regard- 
ing instincts  called  egoism,  and  of  family-regarding 
instincts  which  is  a  kind  of  expanded  and  improved 
egoism  ;  and  therefore  if  the  present  system  were 
changed  by  decree  of  whatsoever  governing  power,  if, 
as  Scha:fifle  says,  Collectivism  were  "proclaimed  in 
the  name  of  the  people  as  a  new  legal  system,"  the 
same  egoism,  dominant  and  universal  in  this  as  in  all 
other  civilized  countries,  would  bring  about  the  same 
system  again,  or  one  closely  resembling  it,  after  a 
period  of  chaos.  It  would  follow  as  surely  as  the  same 
effects  follow  from  the  same  causes. 

Moreover,  the  present  system,  with  all  its  evils,  does 
actually  work.  It  only  wants  improvements,  to  push 
for  which  is  the  right  course  for  all  interested  in  the 
working  classes,  and  for  all  who  suffer  from  the  present 
system,  instead  of  striving  after  an  ideal  which  is  im- 
practicable and  chimerical  in  some  parts,  undesirable 
in  others, and  which  could  not  even  be  setup  in  name 
without  producing  universal  confusion. 

The  mistake  of  the  revolutionary  Collectivists  is  to 


264  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

regard  what  should  be  at  most  only  a  distant  goal,  as 
a  possible  point  of  early  departure,  as  something  from 
which  we  could  start  to-morrow.  With  a  large  allow- 
ance of  time  a  portion  of  their  scheme  may  be  realized, 
while  some  steps  in  the  general  direction,  both  in  the 
sphere  of  legislative  and  governmental  management, 
might  even  be  taken  early. 

An  extension  of  government  management  in  the 
sphere  of  industry  is  undoubtedly  quite  possible,  and 
I  agree  with  Professor  Sidgwick  in  thinking  that  in 
certain  directions  such  extension  would  be  generally 
advantageous.  What  these  directions  are  we  have  inti- 
mated already  in  a  general  way,  and  the  subject  will  be 
considered  more  fully  hereafter.  Here  let  it  suffice  to 
say  that  this  is  pre-eminently  one  of  the  cases  where 
an  induction  from  the  part  to  the  whole  would  be 
fallacious,  where  what  would  be  true  for  part  of  the 
field  of  industry  and  enterprise  occupied  by  the  Go- 
vernment would  not  be  true  if  it  were  universally 
occupied. 

At  least  for  a  very  long  time,  and  probably  for  ever. 
For  it  is  essentially  a  case  where  the  categories  of  time 
and  rate  of  motion,  as  well  as  quantity,  are  all  important 
and  of  the  essence  of  the  argument.  Now  time  and 
rate  of  movement  involve  the  whole  fact  of  social  evolu- 
tion, and  the  doctrine  of  social  evolution  is  accepted 
and  insisted  on  even  by  Karl  Marx  and  Lassalle, 
being  indeed  one  of  the  few  points  in  which  the  new 
Socialism  is  superior  to  the  old.  It  is  absolutely  not 
in  men's  power,  as  they  rightly  say,  to  change  suddenly 
an  economic  system  ;  the  thing  chiefly  implied  in 
evolution  being  that  it  takes  place  slowly  by  way  of 


IN   THE  SOCIALIST   STATE.  265 

natural  growth  and  decay.  Our  whole  economical 
system  is  a  kind  of  organism  with  a  life  and  growth 
and  mutual  relations  of  parts,  and  as  such  it  cannot 
be  suddenly  changed.  Moreover,  it  rests,  as  before 
stated,  on  existing  human  nature,  which  no  one  ima- 
gines can  be  suddenly  or  greatly  changed.  Society, 
as  a  whole,  is  also  an  organism  in  a  fuller  sense  of 
the  word  ;  it  changes,  but  changes  slowly.  The  State 
is  also  an  organism  which  changes,  which  in  modern 
times  enlarges  its  functions  slowly  and  naturally  with 
the  growth  of  civilization.  Now  we  have  seen  that  the 
Collectivist  programme  implies,  when  accomplished, 
a  total  revolution  in  the  State,  in  Society,  in  private 
life,  and  in  the  existing  economical  system,  a  revolu- 
tion to  effect  which  social  evolution  asks  centuries, 
working  by  its  usual  natural  methods,  but  which 
impatient  Revolutionists  and  Collectivists  in  general 
expect  in  a  generation.  At  any  rate^  few  seem  will- 
ing to  defer  the  Socialist  millenium  beyond  A.D.  2000, 
any  considerable  postponing  of  the  date  seeming 
to  take  away  rapidly  from  its  sustaining  and  stimu- 
lating power. 

The  three  revolutions,  economical,  political,  and 
social,  could  all  be  decreed.  The  question  is  how 
far,  with  substantially  unchanged  human  nature  and 
dispositions,  they  could  be  made  effective  towards 
their  aim  ;  and  the  certainty  is  that  the  attempt  to 
make  them  so  would  bring  chaos,  and  confusion  worse 
confounded,  until  human  nature  rose  in  revolt  against 
the  impossible  thing. 

There  are  no  doubt  some  Collectivists  who  disclaim 
revolution,  and  who  do  not  expect  their  programme  to 


266  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

be  fully  realized  for  generations.  And  these  evolution 
Collectivists  are  very  much  wiser  and  more  practical 
than  the  others.  But  if  the  conclusions  we  have  come 
to  be  correct,  there  are  certain  portions  of  the  system 
which  can  never  be  realized,  being  essentially  imprac- 
ticable, and  certain  portions  that  would  be  bad  for 
the  majority  of  the  working  classes.  If,  then,  the 
evolution  Collectivists  throw  those  parts  over,  or  get 
rid  of  what  Schaeffle  calls  "  the  critical  blots "  of 
Collectivism,  they  would  become  practical  State 
Socialists,  and  could  work  in  line  with  Radicals  or 
Tories,  so  far  as  these  respectively  take  up  and 
advocate  Social  Reform  or  practicable  and  beneficial 
Socialist  measures. 


CHAPTER  IX. 
Practicable  State  Socialism  : 

(r.)- LEGISLATIVE. 

Although  the  main  argument  of  the  SociaHsts, 
that  all  wealth  is  the  product  of  labour,  and 
should  therefore  belong  to  the  labouring  classes, 
is  fallacious,  and  although  the  remedies  of  the 
extreme  Socialists  for  admitted  social  ills  are  either 
impracticable  for  the  most  part  and  pregnant  with 
social  chaos,  or  where  they  would  be  practicable 
would  not  be  beneficial  to  the  working  classes  or  the 
community,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  Socialists 
have  got  no  case,  nor  that  there  are  not  real  remedies 
for  real  social  evils  and  injustices  ;  remedies  slower 
and  less  heroic  than  those  prescribed,  but  more  sure 
and  lasting.  I  believe  they  have  a  case,  and  that 
there  are  such  remedies. 

The  strength  of  the  case  of  the  Socialists  lies 
undoubtedly  in  the  fact  that  the  Land  and  Capital, 
the  two  great  requisites  of  production,  other  than 
labour,  have,  as  a  fact,  got  into  the  hands  of  com- 
paratively small  classes,  and  out  of  those  of  the  large 
labouring  classes,  and  with  this  result  as  respects  their 
relation   to  capital,  that  they  are  obliged  to  accept 


268  SOCIALISM  NEW  AND  OLD, 

wages  reduced  by  employers' profits  composed  mainly 
of  interest  and  of  wages  of  management  rated  as  large 
as  interest ;  that  these  labourers'  wages  in  many  cases, 
and  still  more  the  wages  of  common  or  unskilled 
labourers,  tend  to  the  Ricardian  minimum  or  the 
smallest  amount  that  will  suffice  to  support  the 
labourer  and  his  family  until  such  time  at  least  as 
the  children's  labour  can  assist ;  that  from  the  un- 
certain and  changing  circumstances  of  modern  manu- 
facturing industry  in  particular,  which  produces  for 
an  indefinite  and  shifting,  but  world-wide  market, 
only  the  best  labourers  can  expect  to  get  constant  and 
regular  work,  while  even  of  these  many  may  be  thrown 
out  by  new  labour-saving  machinery,  changes  of 
fashion,  or  a  commercial  crisis ;  that  from  these 
different  causes  there  is  always  in  existence  what 
Marx  called  the  "  reserve  army  of  labour,"  a  phrase 
which  ill  describes  the  sorrows  of  their  situation, 
being  only  partially  employed,  and  the  remaining  time 
anxiously  idling  while  subsisting  on  siege  allowance 
from  their  society's  funds,  sometimes  on  the  public 
charity  or  benevolence ;  that  besides  and  beyond 
these  at  the  bottom  of  all  lies  a  mournful  multi- 
tude of  men  and  women  and  children,  the  certain 
result  and  product,  predictable  with  scientific  pre- 
cision, of  our  whole  individualistic  and  saiive  qui 
pent  system,  who  can  get  no  work  save  of  the  most 
casual  kind,  not  to  speak  of  the  considerable  number 
who  have  no  particular  intention  of  working,  being 
indeed  mostly  unfit  for  any  work  ;  who,  having  been 
born  in  a  destitute  condition,  and  never  having  had 
the  chance  to  learn  an  honest  calling,  took  naturally 


PRACTICABLE  STATE  SOCIALISM.      269 

to  the  evil  ways  of  their  parents,  to  thieving,  begging, 
or  loafing,  which  they  still  follow,  there  being  in  fact 
no  other  courses  at  present  open  for  them. 

The  monopoly  of  the  land  in  like  manner  leads  to 

the  worst,  though  not  to  all,  of  the  above  evils.     It 

led  to  ihem  before  the  capitalistic  system  came  into 

being,  and  it  still  leads  to  them  where  it  exists  and 

where  agriculture  is  the  chief  industry,as  in  Ireland  and 

parts  of  Scotland.     If  the  people  are  too  numerous, 

the  rent  competitively  determined  might  conceivably 

amount  to   the  total    produce,  deducting  only  bare 

subsistence,   in    which    case    the   system   would    be 

barely  an  improvement  on    slavery  or   the   corvee, 

save  in  its  presenting  the  semblance  of  freedom.     In 

this   case  rents  would  be   identical  with  profits,   as 

described  by  Ricardo  and  Marx,  namely,  all  above 

bare  subsistence,  in  the  one  case,  of  the  tenant,  in  the 

other  of  the  wage-earner.     This,  however,  docs   not 

apply  to  rents  in  England,  because  in  England  large 

farming  with   large  capital  is  the  general  rule,  and 

the  landlords  can  only  appropriate  what  is  above  the 

line  of  average  profits  (surplus  profits).     But  it  has 

been  the  case,  and  without  interference  tends  to  be 

the  case   in    countries  of  small  tenures,  as    in  most 

parts  of  Ireland  and  in  some  parts  of  Scotland  and 

Wales — which  is  the  one  main  reason  why  the  Land 

Question   is  there    more  important  than  the  capital 

and  labour  question.     IIai:»pily,  however,  the  Land 

Question  in  Ireland,  where  the  evils  were  worst,  is  in 

a  fair  way  of  being  settled   in  the  only  practicable, 

and,  on  the  whole,  satisfactory  way,  by  the  conversion 

of  the  occupier  into  the  owner,  though  land  legisla- 


2/0  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

tion  for  the  benefit  of  the  tenants  in  Scotland  and 
Wales,  suited  to  their  different  social  circumstances, 
is  still  needed.  In  the  rural  regions  of  England  it 
is  the  agricultural  labourer  who  has  been  the  chief 
sufferer  from  the  monopoly  of  land,  and  in  his  case, 
too,  though  something  has  been  done  by  providing 
allotments,  something  more  ought  to  be  done  towards 
the  creation  of  a  class  of  small  farmers  or  owners. 

Besides  unemployed  or  ill-paid  labourers,  or  over- 
rented small  farmers,  there  are  others  discontented 
with  the  existing  order,  and  inclined  to  Socialism : 
all  who  have  been  permanently  displaced  by  the 
present  capitalistic  system  ; — the  petty  tradesman 
and  dealer,  the  superseded  middleman,  the  skilled 
workman  whose  place  has  been  taken  by  machinery, 
the  early  superannuated  ;  in  addition  to  those  dis- 
placed, those  again  who  have  never  been  placed,  or 
who  have  failed  to  get  berths  or  connection  ; — the 
professonal  man  without  business  ;  the  educated  man 
in  general  who  can  find  no  employm.ent,  whether  from 
excessive  competition  or  want  of  character ;  the  edu- 
cated man  who  is  exploited  by  the  capitalist  with 
superior  astuteness,  but  without  intellect  or  culture  ; 
the  man  of  capacity  and  ambition,  but  without  means  ; 
all  the  dcdasscs,  the  failures,  and  the  "  broken  men." 
Besides  those  who  suffer  from  the  present  system,  there 
are  men  of  a  different  stamp  who  favour  Socialism 
in  some  sense  of  the  word,  in  some  cases  without  too 
closely  inquiring  what  sense  ;  the  idealist  who  would 
improve  the  world  at  all  risks ;  the  philanthropist  who 
sees  society's  evils,  and  thinks  that  Socialism  might 
prove  the  cure  for  them  ;  the  social  philosopher  who 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  27 1 

has  thought  out  the  whole  problem,  and  thinks  part 
of  the  Socialists'  programme  right ;  the  moralist  who 
thinks  the  whole  egoistic  system  immoral  ;  the  just 
man  disturbed  at  what  he  considers  the  triumph  of 
the  wicked  in  the  case  of  the  successful  swindling 
speculator  or  financier  ; — all  these  look  with  more  or 
less  favour  on  Socialism  as  something  which,  being 
the  declared  antithesis  of  what  they  dislike  in  the 
present  system,  might  bring  deliverance,  or  a  better 
state  of  things. 

There  is  also  the  Tory  Democratic  Member  of  Par- 
liament who  is  in  sympathy  with  one  side  of  Socialism 
to  a  certain  distance,  and  the  Radical  Member  who  is 
in  sympathy  with  a  different  side  of  it,  and  probably 
to  a  greater  distance,  judging  from  platform  addresses 
and  from  special  programmes.  And  then  the  Church, 
perhaps  from  an  unquiet  feeling  that  something 
singularly  like  Socialism,  mixed  with  something  of 
an  opposite  character,  is  in  the  first  three  Gospels, 
has  shown  a  certain  leaning  to  it,  or  at  least  a  new- 
born interest  in  the  working  man.  Nor  is  the  general 
public  hostile  or  averse,  but  rather  in  its  favour,  pro- 
vided it  does  not  touch  its  interests  or  its  pocket  too 
deeply.  Nay,  it  would  even  go  some  distance  towards 
it,  having  been  awakened  somewhat,  and  having  begun 
to  think  that  the  labouring  classes  have  a  grievance 
against  the  capitalist  class  and  against  the  rich  in 
general. 

Socialism  is  in  fact  supported  not  only  by  labomcrs, 
but  by  a  great  mass  of  discontented  feeling.  It  is  like 
David's  cave  of  Adullam,  to  which  resorted  "  every 
one  that  was  in  distress,  every  one  that  was  in  debt, 


272  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

and  every  one  that  was  discontented."  From  all  this 
~t4r  c(  Socialism  derives  its  strength,  though  no  doubt  it 
is  fundamentally,  as  it  has  been  historically,  a  work- 
/  ing  man's  or  a  poor  man's  question  in  the  main, 
and  a  question  of  material  interests,  a  "question  of 
the  stomach,"  as  Schaeffle  calls  it.  Nevertheless,  it 
has  branched  out  so  as  to  include  other  clashes  than 
ordinary  labourers,  and  other  interests  than  material 
ones,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  preceding  chapters.  In 
the  remainder  of  this  book,  in  addition  to  the  criti- 
cism of  some  proposed  measures,  I  propose  to  submit 
certain  measures  of  a  more  or  less  Socialistic  character, 
some  of  them  intended  to  benefit  the  labouring  classes 
ortheir  children,  some  of  them  to  favour  the  naturally 
fit  in  whatever  class  they  may  be,  but  all  of  them 
aiming  at  a  somewhat  nearer  approach  to  justice  and 
the  greater  good  of  the  whole. 

IL 

The  modern  capitalist,  in  spite  of  trades'  union 
pressure,  can  in  general  secure  his  profits,  besides 
covering  all  risks  and  expenses,  so  that  the  worker 
must  be  content  with  what  remains  of  the  price  of  the 
product  or  suffer  worse.  And  now,  how  did  the 
capitalist  get  his  capital  ?  He  made  it  himself,  or  he 
inherited  it,  most  commonly  the  latter.  As  a  rule, 
his  father  or  grandfather  made  the  business,  the  con- 
nection, and  the  capital,  when  it  was  easier  to  do  so 
than  now.  And  how  did  he  make  it  ?  In  various 
ways,  some  good  and  commendable,  some  question- 
able.    By  overworking  and  underpaying  his  hands ; 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  273 

by  underselling  rivals  and  annexing  their  custom  ;  by 
lowering   prices    to    starve    competitors,    and    again 
raising  prices  to  tax  consumers  ;  by  the  conquest  of 
his  foreign  rivals  until  the  latter  learned  his  methods 
of  manufacture  and  shut  him   out  by  hostile   tariffs. 
Partly,  too,  it  was  due  to  his  business  genius,  to  his 
enterprise  in   first  adapting  new  processes  or  inven- 
tions, to  his  unconquerable  energy,  his  industry,  his 
saving  disposition  in  the  beginning  of  his  career — ■ 
in  these  and   many  other  ways  his  father  or  grand- 
father made  the  business,  which  continued   to  grow, 
which    the    present  capitalist  inlierited  and    perhaps 
increased.     And   such  methods,  pursued  continually 
through  two  or  three  generations,  have  resulted  in  the 
great  accumulated  capitals  in  the  hands  of  individuals 
in  our  days.     Let  us  add  that  Law  for  a  long  time 
favoured  him,  by  denying  to  his  hands  the  right  of 
combination,  by  which  means  profits  were  kept  higher 
than  thev  otherwise  would  have  been  :  that  the  State 
permitted  him  to  work   his   hands  too  long,  and  to 
use  without  restriction  cheap   infants'   and   women's 
labour  until    philanthropists   and   Tory  members    of 
Parliament    compelled   legislative  interference  which 
made  him  forego  part  of  his  gains  in  shortened  hours, 
healthier  factories,  and  in  later  times  by  compensation 
for  prevenlible  injuries  to  his  employes.' 

'  The  above  paiaj,'raph  refers  chiefly  to  the  circumstances  of 
England,  where  the  capitalistic  systLin  first  ap[)c.irccl,  and  where 
it  is  still  in  its  most  developed  form.  Some  of  the  statements 
are,  indeed,  of  jjencrai  application;  but  others  of  them  would 
require  a  (.ertain  qualification  before  they  would  ajiply  to  other 
civilized  communities   that  entered  on  the  large  system  of  pro- 


274  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND  OLD.       - 

No  doubt  at  present  the  capitalist,  as  a  rule,  has 
ceased  to  grow  greater  ;  but  how  great  he  is,  and  how 
many  make  incomes  of  io,000/.,  20,000/.,  50,000/.,  and 
over,  the  income-tax  assessments  show.  Moreover, 
how  many  leave  over  a  million  personalty  we  can  see 
in  the  daily  or  weekly  papers.  No  doubt,  too,  the 
Company  has  come  to  dispute  the  industrial  empire 
with  him  in  respect  of  those  undertakings  too  great 
even  for  his  great  capital,  and  the  company  implies  a 
large  number  of  smaller  capitalists  who  receive  interest 

duction  later  than  England.  Especially  they  should  be  quali- 
fied as  regards  the  United  States,  and  especially  the  statement 
that  large  capital  is  mostly  inherited.  In  the  United  States, 
where  great  centres  of  commerce  or  industry  spring  up  in  twenty 
years  ;  where  new  manufactures  are  often  started  or  old  ones  are 
being  nursed  into  large  proportions,  where  new  inventions  are 
continually  being  made  and  new  sources  of  natural  wealth  are 
continually  being  found,  there  must  be  continually  great  chances 
for  new  men,  and  men  who  make  great  fortunes  for  themselves, 
who  began  with  nothing,  are  very  numerous;  more  so  than  in 
England,  where  the  tendency,  in  the  old  staple  industries  at 
least,  has  been  for  businesses  to  become  hereditary  ;  the  new 
men,  who  start  from  nothing,  only  getting  chances  so  far  as 
they  have  great  ability  and  get  an  opening  to  show  it  in  the  old 
industries  as  manager,  &c.,  or  so  far  as  they  are  instrumental  in 
initiating  new  ones. 

In  England,  in  short,  a  greater  area  of  the  industrial  field  is 
already  occupied  by  hereditary  capitalists  than  in  America  ;  the 
portion  open  to  the  competition  of  business  ability  without 
capital  is  less;  though  in  both  countries  there  is  an  indefinite 
new  area  that  may  be  added  to  the  field  by  the  genius  of  inven- 
tors, who  at  present,  with  the  help  of  patents  and  "  promoters," 
are  usually  able  to  take  care  of  themselves,  and  frequently  to 
make  large  fortunes.  And  the  more  inventors,  and  the  more 
companies  are  required  to  float  the  inventions,  the  more  new 
managers  will  be  required. 


PRACTICABLE  STATE   SOCIALISM.  275 

as  well  as  he.      But  the  company,  especially  in  our ''^-'^  [^ 
times,  has  usually  a  great  capitalist  at  the  core,  as  z.V^d-^irV^ 
sort  of  nucleus  round  which  smaller  ones  are  attracted, yu,.^,^,,^^ 
or  if  not,  there  is  a  skilled  manager  to  be  paid  a  liberal    :^^,^^ 
salary,  and  promoters  and  financiers  to  be  feed,  so  y^.^^/^--* 
that  the  spread  of  the  companies  has  not  effected  any  ^^^^  £^k 
considerable  breach  in  the  large  capitalist's  empire  as  ^y^^^^^Z 
yet,  and   it  has  only  given  the  workers  the  rate  of 
wages  current  hitherto." 

And  now,  if  the  short  road  of  confiscation  is  not  to 
be  thought  of,  and  if  expropriation  of  capitalists,  with 
partial  compensation,  though  possible,  is  unadvisable, 
how  are  the  working  classes  to  get  capital  so  as  to  be 
their  own  employers,  independent  of  the  capitalist, 
and  thereby  to  end  the  quarrel  between  Capital  and 
Labour  }  How  is  the  miracle  to  be  wrought  of  finding 
the  nece.ssary  capital  when  the  only  two  apparent 
roads  to  it  are  barred  }  Is  it  by  saving  out  of  their 
wages  already  docked,  putting  their  "savings"  to- 
gether, and  starting  a  co-operative  factory  or  work- 
shop }  This  is  the  plan  advocated  by  Mill,  Cairnes, 
Thornton,  Thomas  Hughes,  and  many  more,  a  plan 
now  considerably  discredited  after  the  experience  of 
fifty  years  with  only  a  few  successful  instances  in 
England,  a  rate  of  progress  at  which  the  millennium 
may  be  expected  sooner  than  the  emancipation  of 
labour.  Besides,  wherever  large  capital  is  required, 
as  it  is   in  the  most  important  fields  of  production, 

*  The  Syndicate,  indeed,  or  last  development  of  the  company, 
does  hold  out  as  one  of  its  many  alleged  recommendations  the 
promise  of  increased  wages,  without,  however,  being  able  to  any 
considerable  extent  to  perform  it. 


.^. 


276  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND  OLD. 

groups  of  working  men  could  not  find  it;  even  if  they 
could,  the  chances  all  are  that  they  would  be  undersold 
and  beaten  by  the  great  capitalist,  and  the  concern 
sent  into  liquidation.  In  other  directions  requiring 
less  capital  and  less  skilled  management  they  might, 
by  extra  energy  and  enthusiasm,  succeed.  But  such 
limited  and  narrow  success  would  be  far  from  a 
solution  of  the  capital  and  labour  question.  A  well- 
paid,  absolute,  and  capable  head  or  manager  is 
required  in  general  for  success  in  business.  But  co- 
operators  cannot  afford  to  pay  a  manager  highly, 
and  do  not  like  him  to  be  absolute  ;  as  a  consequence 
of  which  co-operation  would  be  a  failure,  or  would 
drag  out  at  any  rate  a  struggling  existence,  while 
probably  affording  less  wages  than  the  service  of  the 
capitalist. 

In  short,  co-operative  production  by  the  unaided 
efforts  of  workmen  will  not  solve  the  labour  problem, 
and  even  the  once  sanguine  hopes  of  enthusiastic 
believers  like  Mr.  Thomas  Hughes  are  beginning  to 
fail,  as  might  be  gathered  from  the  proceedings  of 
the  Co-operative  Congress  of  the  year  1887.  Mr. 
Holyoake  alone  on  that  occasion  seemed  full  of  confi- 
dence, and  delivered  a  jubilant  address  in  that  the 
Jubilee  year  of  co-operation.  Unfortunately,  it  ap- 
peared that  the  co-operation  which  had  done  the 
great  things  he  celebrated — which  possessed  the  mass 
of  capital  and  transacted  the  yearly  business  described 
— was  not  co-operative  production,  but  co-operative 
distribuiion,  which,  however  good  in  other  respects 
for  the  working  classes,  has  little  to  do  with  the 
labour  question  or  its  solution.     Co-operation  might 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  27/ 

possibly  succeed  if  carried  out  on  the  Socialistic 
plan  ;  namely,  by  universalizing  it,  and  thereby 
extinguishing  at  once  the  competition  of  the 
private  capitalist  ;  or,  short  of  that,  by  State  assist- 
ance to  associations  of  workers  by  way  of  loans 
on  a  scale  sufficient  to  try  conclusions  with  the 
capitalistic  system  ;  unassisted,  its  success  can  be  but 
small. 

The  plan  of  State  assistance  is  condemned  by  M. 
de  Laveleye  and  others  as  doomed  in  advance  to 
failure,  chiefly  because  the  experiment  of  advancing 
money  to  associations  of  workmen  in  Paris  in  1848 
turned  out  a  failure.  But  the  failure  of  an  experi- 
ment badly  tried,  whose  failure  was  desired  and 
assisted  by  adverse  interests,  is  not  decisive  against  a 
h'ke  experiment  carried  out  under  more  favourable 
conditions,  and  with  the  light  derived  from  past  ex- 
perience. I  do  not  say  as  regards  co-operative  pro- 
duction that  the  alternative  lies  between  this  and  the 
Socialists'  more  thorough-going  co-operation  applied 
to  every  industry;  but  I  say  that  if  no  such  experi- 
ment on  a  sufficient  scale  and  in  a  sufficient  variety  of 
busines.ses  is  fairly  tried,  we  shall  never  learn  the  real 
capabilities,  the  advantages  or  drawbacks,  of  co- 
operative production,  until  perhaps  one  day,  here 
or  elsewhere,  the  Socialists  force  the  universal  ex- 
periment without  previous  trial,  at  the  nearly  certain 
risk  of  universal  chaos.  A  priori  speculation,  deduc- 
tive reason in'i,^  from  principles  of  human  nature  and 
social  or  industrial  circumstances,  according  to  the 
accepted  economic  method,  though  it  may  teach 
us  much,  cannot,  as  to  this  question,  disclose  every- 

16 


278  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND  OLD. 

thing.  And  even  the  failure  of  small  independent 
attempts  at  co-operation  is  not  decisive,  as  we  can 
see  good  reasons  for  their  failure.  Besides,  if  the 
State  advances  money  to  small  farmers  to  enable 
them  to  become  proprietors  of  the  land,  why- 
might  not  the  town  artisans  ask  for  a  like  favour 
for  a  precisely  analogous  object — to  make  them 
part  proprietors  of  the  capital  needed  for  their 
industry  ?  And  as  the  Liberals  are  fond  of  trying 
experiments  in  favour  of  their  friends  in  the  agricul- 
tural regions  to  give  them  a  part  of  the  land,  why 
should  not  the  Conservatives  or  Tory  Democrats  urge 
one  in  behalf  of  the  town  artisans — a  course  on  the 
lines  of  their  asserted  traditional  policy  as  friends  of 
the  working  classes  ? 

There  are  doubts,  grounded  on  moral  and  general 
considerations,  whether  co-operative  production  can 
succeed  in  the  face  of  fair  competition,  and  if  these 
doubts  are  well  grounded,  it  would  follow  that  pro- 
duction under  it  would  be  less  than  under  the  exist- 
ing capitalist  production  ;  and  that  would  constitute 
a  serious,  though  not  a  decisive,  argument  against 
the  former.  We  want  these  doubts  cleared  up, 
and  this  can  only  be  done  by  trying  it  concur- 
rently with  the  other,  and  in  competition  with  the 
other,  and  by  trying  it  in  a  sufficient  number  and 
variety  of  cases  to  eliminate  chance,  or  exceptional 
circumstances,  and  to  get  at  the  general  rule  and 
tendency.  The  Government  might,  perhaps,  advance 
money  at  the  market  rate  of  interest  to  Associations 
of  Labour  who  had  already  saved  a  fair  proportion  of 
the  required   capital,  and  who  could  thus  give  some 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  279 

guarantee  for  repayment  of  the  loans.  To  make  the 
experiment  fair,  there  should  be  no  further  assist- 
ance or  favour  shown  to.  them  in  the  way  of  orders 
for  their  products.  And  suppose  the  experiment 
fails  .''  Why,  then  it  would  undoubtedly  discredit 
co-operativ^e  production,  and  we  should  probably 
hear  little  more  of  it,  except  amongst  the  fanatics  of 
one  idea.  But  more  likely  it  would  succeed  here 
and  fail  there,  but  succeed  on  the  whole,  in  which 
case  we  should  no  doubt  go  farther  in  the  same 
direction.  In  any  case  we  should  get  important 
light  and  guidance  for  the  future. 

Meantime,  as  the  existing  system  of  employment 
by  capitalists  is  likely  to  last  for  a  considerable  time, 
and  as  very  many  working  men  are  fairly  satisfied 
with  it,  and  on  excellent  terms  with  their  employer, 
judging  from  the  fact  that  they  so  often  help  to  send 
him  to  Parh'ament,  it  would  be  a  good  thing  if  the 
employer  and  his  hands  could  come  to  an  agreement 
amongst  themselves  as  to  the  division  of  the  results 
of  their  united  efforts.  Let  them  agree  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, and  where  they  cannot,  let  them  still  agree  so 
far  as  to  refer  differences  either  to  arbitrators  or,  as 
at  Nottingham,  to  Boards  of  Conciliation,  composed 
of  representatives  of  both  the  masters  and  the  men. 
The  agreement  might  be  in  some  cases  that  wages 
should  be  regulated  according  to  a  sliding  scale  of 
prices  of  product,  as  in  many  of  the  mining  districts, 
or  best  of  all,  that  employers  should  voluntarily  share 
all  profits  above  a  certain  level  with  their  einploytfs. 
Til  is  last  seems  only  reasonable,  considering  that  the 
men  have  to  bear  their  share  of  low  profits  in  the 


28o  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

form  of  lowered  wages,  besides  being  thrown  tempo- 
rarily out  of  work.  Besides,  if  extra  profits  are  not 
shared  voluntarily.  Trades  Union  pressure  can  compel 
it.  But  it  would  be  better  for  the  masters  to  take 
the  initiative  in  the  work  of  conciliating.  They  are 
the  stronger  party  ;  they  have  gained  most  hitherto  ; 
they  can  afford  to  do  with  less  profits  than  their 
fathers  or  grandfathers,  because  their  capitals  are  now 
so  much  greater,  that  with  a  less  rate  of  profits  they 
would  still  have  far  greater  incomes  than  their 
fathers.  If  employers  all  along  the  line  would  only 
be  content  with  less  profits,  foregoing  a  part  to  their 
hands,  there  is  reason  to  think  that  the  reign  of 
the  capitalist  employer  might  long  continue,  because 
in  other  respects  he  is  on  the  whole  the  best  and 
fittest  for  the  place  he  holds.  If  he  would  but  come 
to  look  at  the  whole  question  from  a  new  point  of 
view,  having  regard  to  the  signs  of  the  times  with  this 
Labour  Question  everywhere  ominous  and  threaten- 
ing ;  if  he  would  come  to  see  the  necessity  of  somehow 
coming  to  a  good  understanding  with  his  workers 
while  there  is  yet  time,  much  might  be  hoped  in  the 
way  of  a  working  solution  from  his  unusual  common 
sense,  and  his  clear  and  practical  intelligence.  He 
could,  in  great  degree,  maintain  the  place  which  he 
now  possesses  ;  nay,  perhaps  even  recoup  himself,  by 
the  heartier  co-operation  of  his  hands,  for  the  profits 
parted  with. 

And  if  the  capitalist  should  say,  "  We  cannot  forego 
part  of  our  profits,"  I  reply,  "  You  can,  or  a  great 
many  of  you, — the  fortunate  ones, — can  ;  moreover, 
you  sometimes  do.     Whenever  you  handsomely  pre- 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  28 1 

sent  your  townsmen  with  a  people's  park,  or  endow 
a  college  or  an  hospital,  you  give  money  which  you 
could  have  afforded  to  your  hands,  and  to  which — un- 
less you  are  already  paying  -the  highest  current 
wages,  or  unless  you  can  prove  it  to  be  due  solely  to 
your  business  genius — they  had  a  prior  claim.  In 
these  cases  you  should  have  been  just  before  you 
were  generous,  or  if  the  word  "just  "  is  to  be  ruled  out 
in  economic  bargains,  then  your  generosity  should 
have  begun  with  your  workers.  You  should  first 
have  given  liberal  wages  to  them,  and  afterwards 
given,  out  of  your  remaining  abundance,  if  it  happily 
seemed  good  to  you,  to  your  fellow-townsmen  or 
countrymen  generally. 

"  Besides,  is  it  really  fair  that  you  should  get  so 
high  a  rate  of  profits, — not  only  current  interest  on  all 
your  capital  and  compensation  for  depreciation,  but 
also  wages  of  management  in  proportion  to  the  amount 
of  the  capital,  at  a  rate  as  high  as  the  rate  of 
interest  ?  This  is  really  a  little  too  much  that  you 
and  your  class  look  to  get ;  four  or  five  per  cent,  as  in- 
terest, and  as  much  again  for  wages.  A  fair  salary  is 
all  you  arc  entitled  to,  morally  or  socially,  in  respect 
of  your  services.  It  might  be  liberal,  but  it  should 
not  increase  as  your  capital  increases.  Accordingly, 
the  difference,  the  extra  amount  which  you  now  get, 
should  go  to  your  workers  or  the  public.  You  may 
be  able  to  sell  your  product  so  as  to  give  you  tliis 
large  salary,  because,  as  Mill  says,  you  enjoy  a  sort 
of  natural  monopoly  by  the  very  fact  of  your  large 
capital,  supplemented,  we  grant,  by  your  undoubted 
business  ability.      In  fact,  instead  of  getting  wages 


282  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND  OLD. 

in  proportion  to  the  whole  area  of  your  capital,  you 
should,  if  anything,  get  less  than  a  manager's  wages, 
because  you  already  enjoy  interest  on  the  large 
capital.  Your  four  per  cent,  upon  your  capital  of 
250,000/.  already  gives  you  10,000/.  But  you  look 
to  get,  and  the  clever  or  lucky  ones  of  your  class 
do  get,  a  second  10,000/.  rated  as  wages.  As  much 
of  this  as  exceeds  a  manager's  salary  at  current 
rates  should  belong  partly  to  your  hands,  and  partly 
to  the  public,  to  be  repaid  by  the  people's  park,  the 
restored  church,  or  the  endowed  college. 

"  You  see  your  great  capital,  by  giving  you  a  kind  of 
monopoly,  enables  you  to  crush  or  keep  out  rivals,  to 
raise  or  keep  up  prices,  and  to  a  considerable  extent 
to  dictate  terms  to  your  hands.  But  would  it  not 
be  more  prudent  to  conciliate  the  latter,  and  to  draw 
them  to  your  side  by  good  wages }  If  you  do  not, 
it  may  be  the  worse  for  you.  For  there  is  a  kind 
of  feeling  arising  that  your  lot  in  modern  days  is 
really  too  fortunate,  and  then  there  is  a  doubt  as  to 
the  sources  of  your  capital,  a  suspicion  that,  however 
juridically  unimpeachable  its  title,  it  is  not  all  morally 
yours  ;  and  when  such  a  feeling  rises,  if  not  over- 
come by  your  good  deeds  in  other  directions,  there 
are  ways  in  which  it  can  make  itself  felt  to  your  disad- 
vantage. Correct,  then,  the  possible  defects  in  your  title 
by  justice  to  your  workers,  and  afterwards  by  generous 
benefactions  ;  lest  the  time  should  come  when  your 
profits  may  be  taken  from  you,  and  you  may  have 
to  content  yourself  with  the  manager's  salary  on  less 
than  the  present  scale  of  remuneration." 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  283 


in. 

As  to  the  Land  Question,  in  one  way  or  other,  as 
matter  of  fact,  the  land  of  the  three  kingdoms  has  got 
into  comparatively  few  hands,  and  the  people  who 
formerly  owned  considerable  portions  of  it  have  be- 
come divorced  from  it.  From  this  land  the  landlords 
as  aclass  get  very  high  rents,  whether  agricultural  rents, 
ground  rents,  or  mine  royalties.  The  agricultural 
rents  in  England  amount  to  the  excess  above  ordi- 
nary profits  on  farming  capital,  and  this  was  great 
until  American  competition  in  corn  reduced  it,  by 
reducing  prices  ;  one  consequence  of  which  is  that 
some  of  the  land  is  gone  out  of  cultivation,  and 
thrown  on  the  landlords'  hands  :  what  the  economists 
call  "  the  margin  of  cultivation,"  or  the  land  which 
just  returns  ordinary  profits,  but  can  pay  no  rent,  has 
receded  to  better  land.  Now  at  all  times  there  is 
between  this  margin  of  cultivation,  or  the  land  that 
yields  profits  but  no  rent,  and  the  land  that  would  re- 
place wages,  seed,  and  other  expenses,  but  yield  no 
profits,  a  large  zone  of  land  that  would  yield  vary  ing  de- 
grees of  profits,  less  than  current  profits.  Let  this  land, 
now  largely  increased,  be  let  to  small  farmers  at  low 
rents,  and  as  it  approaches  the  inferior  limit,  at  no 
rents.  The  superior  parts  of  this  zone  would  give 
profits  sufficient  to  small  farmers  who  cultivated  the 
land  chiefly  for  a  living,  and  such  would  be  willing  to 
pay  small  rents  for  the  opportunity,  though  large 
farmers  could  not  afford  to  pay  any.  In  fact,  the 
small  farmers  might  even  make  considerable  profits 


284  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

in  addition  to  supporting  themselves  on  the  land,  on 
account  of  the  greater  care  and  industry  they  would 
bestow  upon  it.  All  would  depend  on  the  rents  being 
low,  and  the  possession  of  a  small  but  sufficient  capital, 
which  might  in  some  cases  be  advanced  by  the  Govern- 
ment at  moderate  interest  to  promising  agricultural 
labourers,  or  to  others  in  the  rural  regions  who  had 
some  knowledge  of  farming,  as  well  as  some  taste 
for  it ;  while  some  even  who  had  gone  to  the  towns 
might  be  drawn  back  by  the  prospect,  to  the  relief 
of  the  human  congestion  of  the  great  cities. 

"  But  why  let  our  land  for  nothing,  or  next  to 
nothing  .'*  "  may  say  the  landlord.  "  As  well  make  a 
present  of  it  to  them."  But  then,  is  it  not  lying  on 
your  hands  and  yielding  nothing  now  ?  and  is  it  not 
better  to  have  a  small  rent  than  nothing  ?  And  even 
if  you  let  some  of  the  inferior  land  outright  for  nothing, 
we  should  not  think  your  generosity  transcendent.  At 
any  rate,  it  might  not  be  so  bad  an  investment  for  you. 
No  doubt  you  have  the  alternative  of  cultivating ' 
the  best  of  this  land  yourself,  and  in  that  way  you 
would  give  employment  perhaps  to  the  same  persons, 
and  also  get  some  profits  from  it.  But  supposing 
you  do  not,  as  most  likely  you  will  not,  so  long  as 
you  have  still  better  land  to  cultivate  if  you  choose, 
then  you  should  be  ready  to  let  it  to  those  who 
can  make  an  independent  living  out  of  it,  and  you 
should  not  act  on  the  "dog-in-the-manger"  policy  of 
not  utilizing  it  yourself,  nor  allowing  others  to 
utilize  it. 

Also  you  can  grant  allotments  at  "  fair  rents  "  to 
the  other  agricultural  labourers ;  allotments  so  large 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  285 

as  to  furnish   a  real  addition  to  their  wages,  and  in 
some  cases  prevent  their  migrations  to  the  towns. 

Then  apart  from  agricultural  rents  which  have 
increased  without  the  landlord's  efforts  or  expense, 
the  ground  rents  have  enormously  increased,  owing 
to  the  extraordinary  increase  of  the  great  cities  and 
towns,  and  the  massing  of  men  in  great  industrial 
centres,  with  a  wide  fringe  of  villas  and  handsome 
residences  in  the  best  surrounding  sites.  In  both 
cases  the  land-owner  and  the  house-owner  have 
found  their  profit — the  land-owner  especially.  From 
both  the  increased  agricultural  rents  and  the  greatly 
increased  ground  rents,  what  Mill  calls  the  unearned 
increment  of  values  has  come,  that  is,  the  increased 
value  not  due  to  either  labour  or  outlay  on  the  land- 
lord's part,  but  to  the  greatly  increased  wealth  of  the 
nation,  a  large  part  of  which  the  landlord  by  his 
position  has  been  able  to  intercept.  Now  this,  it  is 
agreed  on  all  hands,  should  belong  to  the  community 
at  large,  if  only  it  could  be  taken  without  doing 
injustice  to  those  who  have  bought  land  at  the 
market  value  in  recent  years,  since  they  at  least 
have  paid  for  this  increased  value,  and  even  paid  the 
discount  value  of  future  unearned  increments.  It 
would  be  obviously  unfair  to  take  the  unearned  in- 
crement from  the  recent  purchaser  who  lias  paid  for 
it,  because  it  is  not  he,  but  the  person  from  whom 
he  bought,  or  perhaps  his  predecessor  in  possession, 
who  has  pocketed  the  unearned  increment ;  and  in 
the  car.cs  where  the  land  had  been  bought  and  sold 
within  the  past  hundred  years,  it  would  be  diffi- 
cult or  impossible  to  make  any  one  liable  to  a  tax 


286  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

on  the  increment ;  though  there  are  many  other  cases 
where  there  would  be  no  doubt  on  whom  the  tax 
should  justly  fall.  Mill  has  indeed  made  the  sugges- 
tion that  only  future  increments  should  be  taken  ;  but 
this  would  be  difficult  to  carry  out  in  any  other  way 
than  by  buying  compulsorily  the  land  around  the  great 
towns,  and  paying  the  market  value  to  the  present 
holders,  so  that  if  any  increase  should  take  place  in 
future,  it  would  belong  to  the  community,  and  might 
be  applied  to  public  purposes.  And  in  future,  no 
doubt,  new  areas  and  situations  would  have  increased 
values  unbought  by  any  purchaser,  speculative  or 
otherwise. 

The  speculative  holder  of  land  in  or  near  the  large 
towns  should  be  expropriated  on  the  payment  of 
market  prices,  or  if  the  idea  of  market  price  is  not 
applicable  because  there  is  no  true  market,  then  on 
payment  of  fair  prices  to  be  fixed  by  an  impartial 
tribunal.  This  speculative  holding  of  land  interferes 
with  the  general  convenience  of  the  community, 
which  can  hardly  be  expected  to  be  in  deep 
sympathy  with  the  speculator's  naked  egoism  thrust 
so  unpleasantly  before  them,  in  his  patiently  holding 
on  for  years  for  his  high  price.  It  is  a  kind  of  free- 
dom of  enterprise  or  trade  that  ought  not  to  be 
encouraged,  and  it  would  be  well  if  the  municipality 
in  future  anticipated  all  such  speculators  by  an  early 
purchase  of  the  land,  or  failing  that,  by  substituting 
itself  for  them  at  a  later  time  at  fair  prices. 

This,  however,  postulates  a  previous  reform  of 
Local  Government,  without  which  the  species  of  semi- 
socialism  here  recommended  cannot  be  effected.    And 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  287 

in  fact  a  complete  reform  of  Local  Government,  both 
as  regards  the  towns  and  the  counties,  is  the  most 
urgently  needed  of  all  reforms,  and  one  from  which 
more  might  be  hoped  than  from  any  other  as  re- 
gards the  amelioration  of  the  condition  of  the  poor.* 
A  reform  which  would  confer  enlarged  powers  on 
the  municipalities,  while  retaining  a  due  control 
of  them  by  the  central  authority  as  well  as  by  the 
local  public  opinion,  in  order  to  prevent  the  abuse 
of  their  powers  for  personal  or  party  purposes,  might 
confer  great  advantages  on  the  labouring  classes. 
In  the  case  of  the  great  towns  a  certain  flexibility  in  the 
scheme  of  government  would  be  required  to  allow  free- 
dom of  action,  and  this  can  be  secured  by  granting 
the  municipalities  enlarged  powers  of  a  permissive 
kind  in  addition  to  their  essential  powers  and  duties. 
Freedom  will  be  required,  because  initiative  and 
progress  and  varied  development  are  best  promoted 
by  allowing  the  great  energetic  centres,  like  Birming- 
ham, Manchester,  or  Glasgow,  to  go  on  their  tradi- 
tional lines  as  far  as  may  be,  while  giving  them  a 
larger  scope.  It  would  be  very  undesirable  that  our 
cities  should  be  exactly  similar,  like  the  cities  in 
More's  Utopia.  The  greater  the  variety  the  better, 
provided  they  all  have  the  same  good  general  aims. 
They  will  be  so  many  great  experiments,  let  us  hope, 
aiming  at  the  general  well-being  of  the  community, 
and    at    the    suppression    of    poverty    and    misery 

*  The  above  was  written  before  tlic  passing  of  the  Local 
Government  Act  of  18S8,  by  which  considerable  powers  are 
conferred  on  the  County  Councils,  including  that  of  London; 
the  municipalities  of  the  other  great  towns  being  unaffected. 


288  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

not  due  to  the  individuals'  own  faults.  It  will  be 
difficult  indeed  to  effect  this  completely,  or  even  to 
stamp  out  poverty  in  any  single  city,  but  the  city  that 
makes  the  nearest  approach  to  it,  that  has  the  fullest 
schools,  the  emptiest  prisons  and  workhouses,  the 
best  and  healthiest  labourers'  dwellings,  and  the  fewest 
labour  strikes,  will  be  the  model  city.  Perhaps  it 
may  even  help  to  solve  for  us  the  problem  that  has 
hitherto  become  more  insoluble  as  well  as  more 
pressing, — what  to  do  with  the  able-bodied  unem- 
ployed worker  ;  or  give  a  hint  to  London  as  to 
how  to  diminish  the  miscellaneous  confraternities  in 
sorrow  who  formerly  met  in  Trafalgar  Square  under 
a  black  flag,  and  who  still  exist  in  large  numbers 
though  they  no  longer  hold  their  congregations.  If 
it  does,  it  will  indeed  be  the  true  Holy  City,  and  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven  will  have  come  nigh  unto  it. 


IV. 

There  is  a  third  class  monopoly  which,  though  not 
specially  insisted  on  by  the  extreme  Socialists,  yet 
presses  more  heavily  on  the  poorer  classes,  and  pro- 
duces more  and  keener  misery  than  the  monopoly 
of  either  land  or  capital.  And  what  is  the  more 
remarkable,  it  is  a  monopoly  that  is  more  easily 
done  away  with,  as  respects  at  least  its  worst  conse- 
quences, than  either  of  the  other  two. 

There  is  the  monopoly  of  the  Professions,  of  the 
Church,  of  the  best  appointments  in  the  Universities  and 
Colleges,  of  the  best  berths  in  the  Public  Service  ;  of  the 
best  places  in  Business  short  of  the  highest ;  and  of  the 


PRACTICABLE  STATE  SOCIALISM.  289 

innumerable  other  good  positions  open  only  to 
aspirants  with  a  certain  standard  of  education,  in 
addition  to  some  capital  however  small.  This 
monopoly  of  place,  though  not  so  palpable  as  that  of 
capital  or  land,  is  quite  as  real,  and  is  worse  in  its 
consequences,  because  it  is  the  talent  in  the  poorer 
classes  that  is  affected  by  it  ;  and  this  talent,  though 
latent  for  the  most  part,  is  very  great,  considering 
the  enormously  greater  numbers  of  the  classes  in 
which  it  exists,  and  the  great  numbers  of  these  that 
do  make  their  way  in  spite  of  the  obstacles  which 
keep  back  a  far  greater  number. 

There  is  here  a  class  grievance  and  something 
more,  inasmuch  as  it  affects  all  classes  and  sections 
of  classes,  from  the  lower  middle  class  'down  to  the 
lowest  of  all  ;  and  the  grievance  increases  as  we 
descend  the  social  grades,  each  lower  section  being 
excluded  from  an  ever-wider  field  of  prizes  for  which 
candidates  in  that  section  are  out  of  the  running. 
Besides  being  a  class  grievance,  there  is  an  enormous 
waste  of  genius  and  misapplication  of  national 
ability,  which  must  have  for  one  result  a  diminished 
production  of  wealth,  though  that  is  the  least  part  of 
the  loss  to  the  community. 

The  grievance  would  indeed  be  much  greater  if 
the  Socialist's  argument  were  sound,  that  all  wealth, 
including  profits  and  rents,  should  belong  to  the 
labouring  classes,  and  chiefly  to  the  manual  labourers  ; 
for  then  a  very  large  portion  of  the  revenues  of  the 
places  above  named  should  have  belonged  to  them 
in  the  first  instances,  all  profits  except  a  manager's 
moderate  salary,  and  if  not  all  rents,  a  very  consider- 


290  SOCIALISM  NEW  AND  OLD. 

able  portion  of  them  ;  so  that  they  would  have  been 
thus  twice  deprived  of  their  share,  once  at  the  first 
division  of  all  the  produce,  and  again  at  the  second 
division  of  a  large  portion  in  the  shape  of  the  revenues 
of  the  professional  and  salaried  classes.  I  have  not 
been  able  to  accept  the  argument  which  would  assign 
all  wealth  in  the  first  instance  to  labourers  as  such, 
abolishing  interest  and  transferring  rent  to  the  State  ; 
all  the  more  do  I  think  that  the  best  of  these  classes 
should  have  an  opportunity  of  competing  for  so 
much  of  these  funds  as  are  up  for  distribution  a 
second  time,  as  professional  fees  or  salaries  of  the 
public  service,  but  from  which  competition  the 
children  of  the  labouring  class  are  in  main  measure 
excluded. 

It  is  no  longer  the  capitalist  who  is  the  enemy  here. 
It  is  simply  the  self-interest  or  selfishness  of  the 
middle  classes  in  general,  which,  far  from  aff'ording 
facilities  to  ability  in  the  lower  ranks,  managed  to 
appropriate  for  its  own  purposes  most  of  the  educa- 
tional funds  intended  by  pious  benefactors  for  the 
clever  children  of  the  poor.  It  was  a  class  selfishness  ; 
all  natural,  for  the  most  part  unconscious,  though 
systematically  and  persistently  pursued  for  genera- 
tions. And  just  as  the  middle  classes  have  broken  in 
upon  the  monopoly  formerly  enjoyed  by  the  upper 
and  privileged  classes  of  the  best  places  in  the  public 
service  which  were  reserved  for  their  younger  sons 
and  other  relations,  and  which  were  as  good  as  a 
property  for  them,  so  now  the  lines  of  exclusion 
drawn  by  the  middle  class  for  their  own  advantage, 
or   which   their   wealth   necessarily   produces,    must 


PRACTICABLE  STATE  SOCIALISM.  29! 

be  considerably  removed  so  as  to  allow  something 
like  equal  opportunities  to  the  best  ability  in  the  still 
larger  classes  beneath  them. 

And  how  is  this  to  be  done, — to  be  done  effectually 
and  not  in  name  only  ?  There  must  be  in  the  first  place 
either  a  nationalization  of  existing  public  educational 
funds  so  that  all  may  have  an  equal  share  in  them,  or 
better  still,  an  additional  creation  of  funds  in  order  to 
furnish  facilities  in  the  shape  of  prizes,  exhibitions, 
and  scholarships  for  the  talented  poor,  such  prizes  to 
be  attached  to  the  primary  and  intermediate  schools 
as  well  as  to  the  new  and  old  universities  and  the 
many  new  university  colleges,  so  that  the  best  may 
be  assisted  to  rise  successively  and  enter  the  univer- 
sities, the  professions,  the  public  service,  or  an  indus- 
trial career.  By  these  and  similar  means  the  dite  of 
the  children  of  the  poorer  classes  would  have  access 
to,  and  their  chances  of  a  share  in,  an  enormous  total 
annual  revenue,  which  is  perhaps  greater  than  the 
profits  of  capital,  considering  that  a  large  portion  of 
the  profits  of  capital,  as  well  as  of  landlords'  rents, 
a  fair  fraction  of  the  public  taxes  and  some  of  the 
wages  of  labour,  go  directly  to  form  it. 

The  competitors  from  the  masses  and  the  lower  mid- 
dle class  would  thus  have  their  chance  of  a  share  of  this 
great  fund  ;  but  let  not  the  middle  class  be  too  much 
alarmed  at  the  increased  competition.  They  will  still 
be  well  able  to  hold  their  own,  owing  to  the  advan- 
tages that  money  necessarily  gives  to  their  children 
from  the  beginning,  both  in  securing  the  best 
education  and  training  for  competitive  trials,  and  the 
further  advantage  in  enabling  some  to  hold  out  for 


292  SOCIALISM    NEW   AND   OLD. 

better  prospects,  or  probationers  to  hold  on,  to  tide 
over  the  unremunerating  or  the  waiting  years  in  a  pro- 
fession. The  want  of  means  will  be  felt  by  many 
even  with  prizes  on  the  way  and  in  spite  of  all  their 
efforts,  and  many  in  consequence  with  ability  short 
of  the  highest  will  fail.  Fortunately  for  these  coun- 
tries, for  most  of  the  failures  at  home  there  are 
careers  elsewhere, — in  our  Colonies,  in  India,  in  the 
great  expanding  Anglo-Saxon  Republic — otherwise 
these  disappointed  ones  would  prove  a  source  of  social 
danger.  And  we  here  strike  on  one  of  the  obscurer 
causes  of  German  Socialism,  in  the  great  number  of 
well-educated  men  who  are  in  straitened  circum- 
stances and  without  suitable  careers.^ 

We  have  not  many  such  in  these  countries  at  pre- 
sent ;  under  the  scheme  here  recommended  there 
would  indeed  be  a  considerable  number  unabsorbed 
at  home,  but  for  the  placing  of  these  we  have  facilities 
not  possessed  by  any  other  nation.  It  would  be 
something  considerable  that  even  the  select  could 
rise  at  home,  and  that  as  regards  the  greater  number 
who  would  not  rise  so  high,  their  condition  should  be 
better  materially  than  it  would  have  been  without  the 
national  care  and  provision,  to  say  nothing  now  of 
the  special  satisfaction  which  culture  for  its  own  sake 
brings. 

In  this  way  a  great  grievance  of  the  Democracy 

It  is  of  such  that  Dr.  Max  Nordau  speaks  in  his  book, 
*•  Les  Mensonges  Conventionnels  de  notre  Civilization."  "  The 
dec  asses  a.re  the  intrepid  vanguard  of  the  army  besieging  the 
haughty  social  edifice,  who,  soon  or  late,  will  raze  it  to  the 
ground." 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  293 

would  be  removed,  and  many  would  be  conciliated  by 
feeling  that  their  country  cared  for  them,  that  the 
State  was  a  fostering  mother  instead  of  an  institution 
organized  for  the  benefit  of  the  rich  and  high-born. 
The  path  of  the  clever  son  might  thus  be  smoothed 
considerably  for  him  ;  and  if  by  chance  there  was  a 
brother  with  no  special  taste  for  knowledge,  but 
otherwise  apt  and  capable,  such  a  one  might,  with  a 
good  primary  education  supplemented  by  technical 
education,  take  his  place  in  one  of  the  circles  of 
labour  with  much  more  than  his  father's  prospects 
— at  the  lowest  with  higher  wages,  with  more  leisure, 
with  better  instincts  and  aspirations  ;  a  lot  perhaps 
on  the  whole  as  enviable  as  that  of  his  more  ambi- 
tious brother. 

But  what  cannot  be  done  for  the  clever  one  is  to 
make  his  future  position  certain  :  a  chance  only  can  be 
given  him  which  may  in  future  for  men  like  him  be  a 
safer  and  surer  one,  if,  on  his  side,  he  has  character 
as  well  as  mental  ability ;  and  what  cannot  be  pro- 
mised to  the  second  is  that  he  shall  have  an  equal 
share  in  the  product  of  labour  with  the  existing 
master,  or  even  with  the  manager  or  industrial  chief, 
if  the  master  should  ever  disap[)car. 

And  the  daughters,  can  anything  be  done  for 
them  ?  Yes,  something.  The  clever  girl,  as  well  as  the 
clever  lad,  will  have  a  chance  to  raise  herself  socially, 
partly  by  the  new  opportunities  that  will  be  afforded  to 
make  a  livelihood  for  herself,  if  necessary,  but  chiefly 
by  the  corresponding  elevation  of  male  ability,  in  her 
own  grade,  which  will  give  her  more  opportunities  to 
marry  advantageously.     Still  more  will  the  handsome 


294  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND  OLD. 

one,  if  she  be  moderately  educated,  even  though 
not  clever,  be  able  to  marry.  Hitherto,  Beauty  ia 
the  lower  walks  of  life  has  been  sacrificed  ;  or,  if 
selected,  it  has  been  for  questionable  honours.  As 
Genius,  the  Divine  child  incarnate,  instead  of  being 
sought  for  diligently,  and  when  found  assisted  and 
preferred  to  its  fitting  place,  has  been  neglected 
and  smothered  in  poverty,  so  Beauty  in  the  lower 
classes  has  been  trodden  in  the  mud,  and  largely 
sacrificed  to  the  passions  or  social  necessities  of  the 
classes  above.  Partly  from  stupidity,  partly  from 
selfishness,  both  of  these  highest  gifts  intended  by 
Nature  to  raise  the  human  and  the  national  type  have 
been  hitherto  largely  sacrificed — happily  for  both  we 
can  see  fairer  prospects  in  the  not  far-off  future. 

And  whence,  it  may  be  asked,  is  to  come  the 
means  for  these  prizes,  and  for  all  this  free  educa- 
tion ?  From  the  rich,  I  reply,  chiefly,  and  by  taxa- 
tion, if  necessary.  But  happily  much,  if  not  more 
than  enough,  will  come  voluntarily,  as  this  fountain 
of  beneficence  has  been  flowing  freely  for  some  time 
past,  and  may  be  expected  to  flow  still  more  liberally  in 
future,  when  the  rich  get  to  learn  there  is  no  more  cer- 
tain way  of  doing  good  to  others,  perhaps  of  making 
reparation  to  classes  which  they  by  their  position  have 
unavoidably  injured,  or  of  averting  envy  from  their 
own  class.  As  in  the  olden  feudal  times  remorseful 
and  reparative  gifts  flowed  into  the  Church,  in  future 
such  will  flow  in  large  measure  to  the  School,  the 
College,  the  Hospital,  and  the  Orphan  Asylum,  where 
undoubtedly  they  will  be  an  equally  good  invest- 
ment, with  the  spiritual  security  as  sure.     These  dona- 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  295 

tions   will  be  largely   the   property   of  the   talented 
poor.     The  remainder,  if  any  more  be  needed,  can 
be  raised  by  taxes,  imperial  or  local.     Evidently  the 
funds   must    come   chiefly   from   the  wealthier,   and 
justly,    the   object  being    to  diminish   inequality  of 
opportunities,   and  to  raise  the   best   of  the   poorer 
classes.      A  special   educational   rate,   or   a  portion 
of  an  increased  tax  on  inheritances,  which  for  other 
reasons  should  be  increased  in  future,  would  supply 
any  possible  deficiency  in  the  voluntary  contributions. 
And  why  are  we  to  do  all  this?  some  may  say, 
give  our  money,  or  suffer  it  to  be  taken,  to  raise  new 
rivals,  and  to  make  the  poor  our  equals.     And  the 
answer  is,  partly  because  it  is  just,  partly  because  it 
is  prudent  to  give  a  part  in  order  to  insure  the  re- 
maining and  larger  part,  and  a  good  deal  because  it  is 
necessary.     Because   the  days   are  come   when   the 
people  have  got  some  political  power,  and  a  new  dis- 
tribution of  political  power  requires  a  certain  corre- 
sponding distribution  of  wealth,  or  of  the  means  to  it, 
amongst  which  education  is  the  first  to  the  poorer 
classes.    Moreover,  if  these  several  suggested  changes 
are  to  their  advantage — as  who  can  doubt  it — and  if 
they  are  also  just,  the  labouring  classes  will  in  time  or- 
ganize to  demand  them,  and  perhaps  something  more. 
And  be  not  too  sure  they  cannot  get  them.     They 
ask  a  share  of  capital,  ofland,  of  education,  or  to  be 
placed  in  a  position  to  help  themselves  to  a  moderate 
share,  from  which  they  think   they  are  unjustly  ex- 
cluded.    This   is  their    reasonable  minimum,    which 
granted  would  secure  peace  in  our  generation  ;  re- 
fused would    throw   moderate    and    reasonable    men 


295  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND  OLD. 

into  the   arms   of   the   extreme    and    revolutionary 
party,    who    will    ask    much    more.     And  say  not, 
"  There  is  no  danger  ;  things  will  go  on  without  con- 
cessions or  bribes,  which  only  prompt  to  further  de- 
mands.    The  danger  is   to  begin  reforms  or  legisla- 
tion  which  touch  on  property."     It  may  indeed  be 
dangerous,   in  the  sense  that  you  may  have  to  part 
with  something,   but  it  would  be  more  dangerous  to 
delay  reforms,  or  refuse  to  attempt  them.     Nor  con- 
sole yourself  with   the  reflection  that  in  the  last  re- 
sort the  sword  is  on  your  side,  for  principles  are  more 
potent  than  the  sword,  and  they  are  now  opposed  to 
you.     Moreover,  the  sword  in  the  hand  of  the  soldier 
has  before  now  dropped  before  them  on  the  day  of  trial. 
No  doubt  for  a  time  a  reactionary  Government  can 
repress.      But   it  would   be  difficult   to   do   so    long 
under   our    new    democratic    constitution,    and    the 
Government  that   tried    it  far  would    be    called     to 
account.     It  may  be  taken,  therefore,  that  on  reflection 
you  will  not  oppose  the  needed  reforms  ;  nay,  I  think 
it   likely   that    your   representatives    in    Parliament 
will  take  a  quite  contrary  course,  and  that  a  rivalry 
between  Liberals  and  Tories  may  begin  as  to  which 
can  do  the  most  for  the  classes  beneath  ;  that  the 
Tory  will   try  to  befriend  the  artisan  of  the  towns, 
while  the  Liberal  and  the  Radical  will  champion  the 
cause  of  the  agricultural  labourer;  a  species  of  com- 
petition,  no  matter   what  its    historical    origin,   and 
however  it  looks  like  a  game  of  cross  purposes,  that 
can  only  result   in  the  general  good.     May  it  prove 
so.      It  is  the  most  hopeful  thing  about  our  Party 
Government  that  each  of  our  two  great  parties  seems 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  29/ 

anxious  to  take  under  its  special  protection   and  to 
work  for  one  of  the  two  great  subjected  sections  of 
labour.     And  there  is  this  finally  to  be  said  to  our  too 
apprehensive  middle  and  upper  classes.    Honesty  and 
justice  in  this  as  in  other  directions  will  be  found  the 
best   policy.     The  partial  reparation   asked  for  will 
not  amount  to  much  during  a  single  generation,  while 
it  will  set  the  face  of  society  in   the  right  direction, 
and  make  social  progress  a  reality  and  not  a  name. 
You  will  hardly  feel  it,  and  much  less  if  you  come  to 
think   rightly  about   it.     In  time   you  will  feel  glad 
you  were  called   upon   to   make  the  sacrifice,  which 
so    far    as   voluntary    will    be    counted    to    you    for 
righteousness.      You  will    have    the    satisfaction    of 
having  done  your  duty   by  your  neighbour,  which   in 
our  times  so  many  know  not  how  to  do;  of  having 
been  on  the  side  of  justice  in  your  day  and  genera- 
tion ;  of  having  thereby  aided  in  the  solution  of  the 
greatest,  most  perplexing,  and  most  formidable  of  all 
problems,  and  of  helping  to  keep  off  the  chaos  threat- 
ening,   which    might    else   have  come.     And    if  the 
case  is   rightly   thus  put,  it  can   hardly  be  doubtful 
which  of  the  cour.ses  you  will  prefer. 


We  come  to  another  and  a  vital  side  of  our  subject, 
perhaps  the  most  important  side  of  all.  Of  the 
two  chief  corner-stones  of  our  present  econo- 
mical and  social  system,  interest  and  inheritance, 
interest,  as  already  shown,  could  not  be  touched 
by  law  without  producing  confusion,  nor  abolished 
without  immediate  and  universal  chaos.     It  is  other- 


298  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

wise  as  respects  inheritance.  Inheritance  can  be 
touched  by  the  State  both  by  legislation  and  by 
taxation,  and  it  has  been  already  touched  with 
advantage.  I  believe  with  Mill,  that  the  right  of 
inheritance  could  be  still  farther  restricted  with 
much  social  and  moral  advantage,  and  without 
economical  disadvantage,  provided  that  the  infringe- 
ment did  not  too  greatly  run  in  advance  of  the 
public  sentiment,  which  is  now  setting  in  that 
direction. 

The  reasons  for  the  State  restricting  the  right  of 
inheritance,  and  reserving  a  portion  for  itself,  some  of 
them  strongly  urged  by  Mill,  forty  years  ago,*  and  of 
still  greater  strength  to-day,  are  of  the  following 
nature : — That  part  of  the  wealth  left  by  rich  men, 
though  legally  it  belonged  to  them  during  life,  was  yet 
not  morally  theirs,  the  whole  being  far  more  than  their 
services  were  worth,  even  rating  them  highly  and 
rewarding  them  liberally  ;  that  of  the  million  or  half- 
million,  supposing  it  all  to  have  been  "  made,"  as  the 
phrase  runs  (and  not  inherited),  part  was  the  result 
of  mere  luck,  part  of  business  genius,  or  of  good 
business  qualities  and  skilful  audacity  combined, 
which  last  makes  the  great  and  successful  financier 
and  speculator,  though  even  into  honest  production 
and  distribution  the  speculative  element  increasingly 
enters,  so  that  chance  as  well  as  skill,  in  consequence, 
is  represented  in  the  pecuniary  results.  In  the  case 
of  both  producing  and  distributing  capitalists,  still 
more  in  the  case  of  the  financing  ones,  those  who 
leave  large  fortunes  are  the  successful  survivors  of 
'  Political  Economy,  Book  ii.,  Chapter  ii.  §  4. 


PRACTICABLE  STATE  SOCIALISM.  299 

many  competitors,  most  of  them  failures  who  move  on 
crippled  wings,  or  who  have  long  since  gone  to  the 
bottom.  In  speculation  the  losses  of  the  failures 
become  the  gains  of  the  fortunate,  as  the  expected 
profits  of  the  employing  capitalist  who  failed  are  ap- 
propriated by  his  rival  through  extended  custom  and 
in  other  ways.  A  large  part,  then,  of  this  pile  of  wealth 
was  due  to  luck  ;  what  part  was  withheld  from  the 
workers  in  some  cases,  what  part  was  the  result  of 
monopoly  prices  or  of  skilful  cornering,  or  of  other 
questionable  practices  which  cannot  be  prevented, 
but  which  the  moral  sense  disapproves,  we  cannot 
precisely  say,  though  we  know  that  a  considerable 
fraction  of  the  total  amount  subject  to  the  death 
duties  is  due  to  these  several  causes,  and  might  very 
fairly  be  taken  by  the  State  if  it  could  be  distin- 
guished. The  only  way  to  do  rough  justice  would 
seem  to  be  to  lay  on  an  additional  tax,  increasing  the 
rate  as  the  amount  of  the  property  left  increases. 

By  falling  on  inheritances  a  tax  falls  where  it  can 
best  be  borne,  hits  where  it  least  hurts.  The  dead  man 
will  not  feel  it :  he  only  felt  it  prospectively  during 
life  ;  the  heir  will  not  feel  it  much,  considering  his 
great  good  fortune.  The  testator  was  lucky,  but  he 
also  laboured  ;  the  son  is  more  lucky,  inasmuch  as 
he  inherits  the  results  of  his  father's  luck  without 
labour.  The  father's  fortune  included  "unearned 
increments  "  not  due  even  to  his  father's  labour  ;  the 
son  gets  these  and  much  more  without  any  labour, 
and  surely  he  should  not  grudge  the  State  a  share, 
especially  if  taken  at  the  time  of  his  sudden  accession 
to  fortune,  when  he  can  best  spare  it. 


300  SOCIALISM    NEW   AND   OLD. 

The  heir  cannot  here  prefer  the  highest  of  all  titles 
to  property,  namely,  that  it  is  the  direct  fruits  of  his 
own   labour,   or  of  the  labour  of  others  that  he  has 
bought  at  an  agreed  price.     He  has  no  moral  claim 
to  all  his  father's  wealth,  but  only  the  legal  claim  that 
it  was  freely  bequeathed  to  him  by  its  former  owner  ; 
but   this  power  of  bequest  or  gift  after    death    the 
State  has  always  reserved  the  right  of  controlling  in 
accordance  with  its  views  of  general   expediency  ;  so 
also  it  has  reserved  the  right  of  taxing  bequests.     In 
ancient  times  the  State  or  the  laws  controlled  the 
power  mainly  in  the  interest  of  the  family,   because 
the  claims  of  the  children   were  then   real  as  joint 
labourers  and  defenders  with   the  father.     Land  was 
then  the  chief  wealth,  the  family  group  and  not  the 
individual  was  the  unit  of  society,  and  no  outside  group 
could  urge  a  claim  to  part  of  the  property,  while  the 
needs  of  the  State   for  general   purposes  were  small. 
Inheritance  was  then  a  natural  institution,  and  pains 
■were   taken    by     law-givers    like    Moses    to    give    it 
the  sanctions  of  law,  and  to  make  it  inalienable.     Now 
things  are  all  different.     Great  masses  of  wealth   are 
frequently  aggregated  in  money-form  during  a  single 
life  in   sundry  ways.     There  are  opportunities  to  a 
man    who   devotes    himself  exclusively    to   money- 
making   not  possible  formerly,  not  possible  even  a 
hundred  years  ago,  by  availing  himself  of  which  he 
may   leave  wealth   to  the   extent  of  millions.     The 
contention  is  that  these  millions,  though  legally  the 
maker's,  were  not  all  morally  his.     They  were  not 
absolutely  and  wholly  his,  still  less  are  they  his  son's, 
by  any  natural  or  moral  right.     Besides  his  skill,  his 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  3OI 

luck,  his  initiative  even,  he  could  not  have  had  them 
save  for  the  prog ressof  Science  and  Invention,  nor  even 
if  Law  had  not  favoured  him  in  various  ways  by  allow- 
ing him  a  very  free  hand  in  the  supposed  interests  of 
trade  and  industry  generally — a  somewhat  freer  hand 
than  he  will  have  in  future.  The  public  has  a  moral 
claim  to  a  part  ;  the  public,  including  his  own  as- 
sistants or  hands  in  his  work,  nay,  even  the  orphan 
children  of  a  defeated  rival  in  the  business,  perhaps 
the  needy  son  or  grandson  of  the  inventor  of  some  im- 
proved "  mules,"  or  of  the  discoverer  of  some  chemical 
process,  the  chief  pecuniary  results  of  which  have 
gone  to  the  capitalists.  The  interests  of  Science 
and  Invention  have  a  claim.  The  State,  besides, 
has  its  own  special  claim,  always  allowed,  and 
the  State  might,  when  levying  the  succession  duties 
as  its  own  special  claim,  collect  such  an  additional 
percentage  as  it  may  deem  due  to  these  several 
other  claims. 

That  there  is  a  real  public  claim,  though  of  in- 
definite amount,  cannot  reasonably  be  doubted,  and 
the  best  confirmation  of  the  contention  is  the  practice, 
now  happily  growing  on  the  part-  of  wealthy  men, 
of  leaving  bequests  for  public  pur[)Oses,  or  even 
making  beneficent  donations  during  life.  This 
practice  is  no  doubt  partly  due  to  the  feeling  that 
they  owe  something  to  the  public  outside  the 
family  group,  though  it  may  also  be  due  to  other 
causes.  Those  who  thus  anticipate  and  give  of  free 
grace  what  is  due  do  well,  and  it  should  perhaps  be 
allowed  to  count  in  abatement  of  the  State's  subse- 
quent claims;  those  who  will  not  emulate  the  good 

16 


302  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

example  should  receive  admonition  from  the  State  in 
the  form  of  a  special  and  additional  tax,  to  be  put 
upon  inheritances  and  bequests. 

The  extra  taxes  thus  raised  could  of  course  be  used 
to  ease  the  burden  of  taxation  in  other  directions  ; 
but  it  would  be  better  if  they  could  be  appropriated 
more  specifically  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  might 
presumably  have  suffered  pecuniary  injury  by  the 
large  accumulations,  which  would  be  the  working 
classes  through  short  wages,  the  general  public 
through  high  prices,  or  defeated  rivals,  the  incidence  of 
the  injury  falling  differently  according  to  the  class  of 
capitalist,  whether  producing,  distributing,  mining  or 
financing.  Part  of  the  proceeds  would  be  morally  due 
to  the  Friendly  or  Benefit  Societies  of  working  men,  as 
Prince  Bismarck  apparently  thinks,  though  he  prefers 
to  levy  it  during  the  master's  lifetime  ;  part  is  due  to 
the  Orphan  Asylum  or  the  Widow's  Assurance 
Society  for  the  wife  and  children  of  defeated  com- 
petitors, but  this  would  come  with  more  grace  from 
the  voluntary  gift  or  bequest  of  the  conquering 
capitalist ;  something  also  is  due  to  the  Educational 
Funds  of  the  nation  in  the  shape  of  prizes  and 
exhibitions  open  to  all.  Part  might  also  be  appro- 
priated, not  so  much  to  interests  damaged  by 
industrial  war  or  monopoly,  as  to  more  general 
interests,  such  as  science  and  invention,  from  which 
was  derived  a  portion  of  the  fortune  in  many  cases  ; 
and  this  part  would  naturally  be  allocated  to  the 
endowment  of  the  Technical  School  or  the  College 
of  Science,  following  in  the  lines  of  the  excellent 
example    set    by    the    late   Sir   Josiah  Mason,    Sir 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  3O3 

Joseph  Whitworth  and  other  benefactors,  who  thus 
repaid  their  special  recognized  debt  to  science  as 
well  as  to  their  countrymen  in  general. 

In  this  way  reparation  might  be  made  to  under- 
paid hands,  to  ruined  rivals,  to  the  general  public,  to 
the  unemployed  in  the  special  industry.  But  the 
objection  will  without  doubt  be  raised,  that  the  tax 
would  be  evaded  by  gifts  during  life,  or  by  private 
arrangements  making  over  the  interest  in  the  busi- 
ness  to  the  children,  or  by  other  ingenious  devices 
which  the  genius  of  self-interest  will  suggest  to 
astute  men  fertile  in  expedients.  I  reply  that  such 
would  only  be  the  case  if  the  portion  reserved  by  the 
State  be  excessive  ;  it  would  not  be  so  to  any  great 
extent  if  the  increases  were  made  by  degrees,  and  were 
not  very  considerable  at  each  increase,  and  if  they 
did  not  outrun  the  general  public  sentiment  setting 
in  the  direction  of  restraining  overgrown  fortunes. 
Besides,  certain  evasions  should  be  classed  as  fraudu- 
lent, and  discouraged  by  penalties.  Then  it  may  be 
said  that  the  tax  would  so  much  discourage  saving  and 
effort  that  soon  there  would  be  a  small  volume  to 
tax,  and  that  finally  all,  and  especially  the  working 
classes,  would  lose  more  than  they  would  gain. 
This  too  only  applies  to  excessive  taxation,  and  even 
if  to  a  small  extent  it  would  be  true  as  regards 
particular  individuals,  such  slackened  effort  and  dimi- 
nished savings  would  give  a  better  chance  to  rivals, 
or  to  c<')mpanics  that  would  be  glad  to  find  a  field  of 
enterprise  less  occupied,  though  their  accumulated 
profits  be  liable  to  deduction.  After  a  certain 
time  as  much  labour  as  before   would   be  employed, 


304  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

while  the  profits  would  be  more  divided.  By  degrees 
undoubtedly,  the  capitalist  being  a  very  clear-sighted 
person,  would  accept  the  situation,  which  would 
still  leave  him  and  his  children  in  a  far  better  position 
than  would  have  been  possible  for  him  had  he  lived 
a  hundred  or  even  fifty  years  ago. 

On  the  whole,  the  advantages  would  greatly  out- 
weigh the  possible  drawbacks,  and  this  is  the  only 
direction  in  which  a  part  of  the  policy  of  the  Social- 
ists also  falls  in  with  the  past  policy  of  the  State,  the 
views  and  sometimes  the  practice  of  enlightened 
business  men,  as  well  as  the  suggestions  of  some 
economists,  including  John  Stuart  Mill.  We  cannot 
go  the  impossible  length  of  the  St.  Simonians  and 
other  reconstructors,  who  would  abolish  inheritance 
altogether  :  this,  though  not  so  chaotic  in  its  conse- 
quences as  the  abolition  of  interest,  would  equally  run 
against  human  nature  in  one  of  its  deepest  part~;,  the 
sentiment  of  family,  and  family  affection  ;  so  that  it 
would  be  impossible  to  carry  out  the  law  ;  but  we 
can  and  should  limit  inheritance. 

Mill  has  in  this  connection  suggested  a  plan  that 
would  have  more  extensive  consequences,  for  ^yhich 
the  times  are  hardly  ripe.  He  suggests  that  the 
power  of  bequest  should  be  free,  but  that  the  amount 
that  any  one  heir  or  legatee  should  be  permitted 
to  take  should  be  limited  by  law  to  a  moderate 
competence.  In  reality,  this,  while  leaving  the  power 
of  bequest  apparently  free,  would  restrict  it,  because  if 
the  testator's  intentions  were  not  allowed  to  be  car- 
ried out,  he  would  not  be  free  to  leave  as  he  pleased, 
and  they  would  not  be  carried  out  if  he  bequeathed 


PRACTICABLE  STATE  SOCIALISM.      305 

the  bulk  of  his  property  to  his  children,  while 
the  State  declared  the  children  could  only  inherit 
a  certain  amount.  Let  us,  however,  consider  the 
consequences  of  the  idea. 

A  rich  parent  dies,  and  leaves  four  children, 
together  with  personalty  to  the  extent  of  say  half  a 
million.  The  State  has  declared  that  none  of  the 
children  can  inherit  more  than  a  competence.  This  we 
will  suppose  to  be  looo/.  a  year.  25,000/.  is  all  that  each 
will  be  allowed  to  take,  supposing  interest  to  be  four 
per  cent.  They  cannot  all  together  take  more  than 
100,000/.  The  State  comes  in  for  the  remaining  and 
much  greater  portion,  unless  the  testator  has  made 
other  bequests. 

What,  under  such  a  law,  would  be  the  likely  course 
of  the  parent  ?  He  can  leave  his  wealth  as  he  pleases, 
to  individual  or  corporation,  but  he  cannot  give  more 
to  any  individual,  however  dear,  than  a  hmited  amount. 
The  result,  though  difficult  to  follow,  will  be  impor- 
tant and  far-reaching.  The  ordinary  motives  to  great 
and  long-continued  exertion  are  weakened.  The 
greatest  of  all  motives,  namely,  to  provide  for  the 
interests  of  a  family,  is  not  indeed  weakened,  nor  the 
motive  to  work  for  wealth  so  far  as  it  ministers  to 
his  own  luxury  or  ostentation  or  power  during 
life,  but  the  motive  to  exertion  after  enough  is  made 
for  these  purposes  is  absolutely  removed.  When  he 
is  worth  a  quarter  of  a  million,  he  has  little  motive 
to  work  to  leave  half  a  million,  because  the  first  gives 
him  all  he  wants  ;  and  certainly  after  he  has  made 
the  half-million,  he  has  little  inducement  to  work  for 
another  half.     The  result  would  probably  be  a  remis- 


306  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

slon  of  effort,  or  early  retirement,  or  greater  unpro- 
ductive consumption  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life,  unless 
indeed  we  suppose  a  great  moral  change  to  have  come 
over  his  character,  which  makes  him  desirous  to  work 
as  hard  as  ever  for  the  general  good  ;  unless  he  is 
satisfied  to  give  higher  wages  to  his  hands,  or  anxious 
to  give  more  contributions  to  public  objects.  No 
doubt  by  fixing  high  the  amount  that  each  one  might 
inherit,  or  rather,  what  comes  to  the  same  thing,  by 
not  lowering  the  existing  unlimited  amount  too  much 
or  too  soon,  objections  to  this  view  of  Mill's  may  be 
met,  and  as  Mill  also  recommends  increased  taxes 
on  inheritances,  the  practical  results  of  the  two  views 
would  not  be  very  different.  On  the  one  plan,  by  the 
State  reserving  a  fraction,  say.  one-tenth,  the  testa- 
tor would  be  left  free  to  dispose  of  nine-tenths  ;  on 
the  other,  he  could  only  leave  up  to  a  certain  surr:  to  a  ay 
person,  but  he  might  leave  to  that  amount  to  as  many 
persons  as  he  pleases,  and  presumably  to  corporations 
to  a  still  greater  amount.  The  important  practical 
matter  would  be,  in  the  one  case  not  to  fix  the 
State's  portion  too  high,  in  the  other  not  to  put  the 
competence  allowed  by  Mill  too  low,  so  that  under 
either  scheme  we  might  go  on  without  any  consider- 
able solution  of  continuity  in  the  sphere  of  industry. 
And  here  the  conclusion  comes  in  view  that  all 
speculation  in  social  matters  always  brings  us  to, 
—that  all  proposed  changes  in  legislation,  or  in 
practices,  presuppose,  to  make  them  effective,  a 
moral  or  psychological  change  in  the  individuals. 
If  you  could  change  men's  motives,  the  springs  of 
their  action,  you  could  change  all  the  rest.     If  you 


PRACTICABLE  STATE  SOCIALISM.      307 

could  get  men  to  desire  to  live  and  labour  for  others, 
as  the  Positivist  motto  is  ;  if  you  could  really  get  them 
to  love  their  neighbour  as  themselves,  as  Chris- 
tianity commands  ;  if  men  were  the  sort  that  Mill 
thinks  they  will  become,  these  laws  would  be  effica- 
cious, for  they  would  only  anticipate  the  desires  of 
men.  Even  then  they  would  be  useless,  as  men 
would  do  the  thing  proposed  without  the  law.  The 
law  at  present  should  not  be  far  ahead  of  the  best  men's 
practice,  or  moral  feeling  at  least  ;  it  should  not  be 
ahead  even  of  the  feeling  of  a  considerable  minority, 
for  the  majority,  if  they  cannot  get  the  law  altered, 
will  then  try  to  evade  or  stultify  it.  But  when  the 
sentiment  and  the  practice  turn  the  way  the  re- 
former desires,  the  law  may  be  passed.  And  contem- 
poraneously the  preaching  of  the  moralist  is  re- 
quired. He  may  urge  with  effect,  as  Mill  does,  that 
the  son's  happiness  would  be  better  consulted  by  a 
moderate  competence  than  a  large  fortune,  of  no 
use  save  to  give  dangerous  power  or  to  command 
to  satiety  heaps  of  intrinsically  worthless  things, 
which  receive  their  value  from  a  mere  perverted 
taste  and  opinion.  Of  course  there  is  at  present  not 
much  use  in  preaching  this  doctrine  to  the  generality. 
But  a  great  change  has  come  over  many,  and  the  value 
of  immaterial  and  comparatively  uncostly  things  is 
beginning  to  be  discovered,  especially  by  the  son  of 
the  capitalist.  Culture,  art,  science,  literature  have 
begun  to  appeal  to  feelings  in  his  breast ;  above  all, 
he  who  will  be  the  future  industrial  chief  has  been 
meditating  about  the  social  and  moral  sides  of  the 
great   economical    questions,  and  he    is    disposed  to 


308  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

take  a  different  view  from  his  father  or  grand- 
father. The  mind  and  the  moral  sentiments  of  his  age 
and  country  have  embraced  him,  are  pressing  on  him. 
He  cannot  escape  them,  happily  does  not  wish  to  do  so. 
And  from  this  young  man,  when  he  comes  to  fill  his 
father's  seat,  considerable  things  may  be  expected.  I 
think  he  will  be  called  on  to  take  a  large  part  in  the 
solution  of  this  labour  question.  I  expect  he  will 
rise  to  a  higher  conception  of  his  function,  and  that 
he  may  make  it  for  the  first  time,  though  for  less  pecu- 
niary reward,  a  really  great  one,  by  accepting  its 
moral  as  well  as  its  other  responsibilities.  And  it 
may  be  noted  that  Mill  is  ready  to  allow  to  him 
much  more  than  a  competence,  though  he  also  looked 
— a  little  prematurely  as  I  think — for  his  early  dis- 
appearance, or  his  transmutation  into  the  salaried 
manager. 

VI. 

But  what  of  our  friends  who  used  to  meet  in 
Trafalgar  Square  under  the  black  flag — the  genuine 
unemployed,  as  distinct  from  the  loafer,  the  mendicant, 
and  the  thief — the  men  who  have  worked,  who  are 
able  and  willing  to  work,  but  who  can  find  no  work  ? 
Strange  to  say,  this  obscure  man  out  of  work  con- 
stitutes the  crux  of  our  civilization,  and  the  future 
of  society  may  depend  on  how  it  disposes  of  him, 
how  it  deals  with  him.  His  cause  is  in  our  time 
the  cause  of  humanity,  the  social  problem  turns 
round  him,  and  we  must  hush  all  fine  talk 
about   progress,  love   and  life   for  others,   freedom, 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  309 

justice,  even  religion,  so  long  as  he  is  in  our  midst, 
and  his  life  is  miserable  and  insecure.  We  must 
suspend  a  little  our  activities  for  the  heathen,  and 
our  anxiety  to  save  his  soul,  our  compassion  for  the 
far-off  slave,  all  benevolent  and  philanthropic  effort 
and  talk,  till  we  steadily  face  his  case  to  see  if  any- 
thing can  be  done  to  better  it,  whether  by  the  State 
or  any  agency  outside  himself  There  are  indeed 
those  who  believe  that  nothing  can  be  done  for  him 
by  the  State  whether  by  legislation  or  remedial 
measures  without  producing  worse  results  for  the 
labouring  class  ;  that  the  fate  of  the  unemployed,  in 
common  with  that  of  all  labourers,  is  in  their  own 
hands,  being  bound  up  with  the  Malthusian  law  of 
population,  and  that  by  a  due  restraint  on  the  numbers 
of  his  class,  and  by  no  other  means,  can  work  be 
assured  and  wages  raised  ;  low  wages  and  want  of 
employment  coming  from  excessive  numbers  com- 
pared with  the  demand  for  their  labour.  On  the 
other  hand  there  are  remedies  confidently  offered  for 
his  case,  irrespective  of  the  law  of  population  ',  and 
as  usual  we  shall  have  to  search  for  what  is  true,  as 
well  as  for  what  is  practicable  and  necessary  between 
two  opposite  views. 

The  case  of  the  unemployed  is  a  very  old  one,  if 
it  be  also  a  hard  one.  Two  thousand  years  ago  in 
Juda-a  he  was  found  standing  "idle  all  day  in  the 
market  place,"  and  why?  "because  no  man  had  hired 
him,"  as  we  read  in  the  Gospels.  Under  every 
society  organized  on  the  principle  of  individualism 
and  private  property,  he  necessarily  appears,  after 
the    land    has    been    fully    appropriated.     Under   a 


3IO  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

slavery  regime  he  does  not  appear ;  under  the 
feudal  system  he  did  not  show ;  it  was  only  on 
its  break- up  and  after  the  emancipation  of  the 
villeins  and  serfs  that  the  unemployed  proletariate 
made  his  "  first  tragic  appearance  on  the  stage  ot 
mediaeval  society."  We  find  him  in  England  from 
the  reign  of  Richard  II.  onwards,  the  emancipated 
but  landless  villein ;  throughout  the  century  of  the 
Tudors  the  "  true  men  '^  out  of  work,  as  well  as  the 
"valiant  beggars"  and  "sturdy  vagabonds"  who 
would  not  work,  were  constantly  increased  in  num- 
bers, first  by  the  dismissal  of  the  warlike  baron's 
retainers  at  the  end  of  the  Wars  of  the  Roses,  then  by 
the  displacements  of  the  tenants  through  the  cruel 
conversion  of  the  arable  land  into  pasture  in  the  reigns 
of  Henry  VII.,  Henry  VIII.,  and  Edward  VI.,  as  well 
as  by  the  suppression  of  the  monasteries,  which 
withdrew  a  provision  for  the  most  destitute. 

The  poor  were  always  in  existence,  the  lack-lands 
and  lack-alls  ;  but  the  unemployed  worker  in  the 
large  towns,  the  "  reserve  army  of  labour  "  (as  Marx 
calls  it),  now  at  work,  now  anxiously  looking  for 
work,  or  doing  nothing,  is  a  comparatively  modern 
as  well  as  a  portentous  phenomenon.  This  is  the 
true  proletariate — the  modern  workers  who  cannot 
find  constant  or  assured  work,  and  who  are  badly 
paid  when  at  work.  And  if  we  would  know  the 
remedies,  if  any,  for  his  case,  we  should  clearly  know 
what  brings  him  here,  what  were  the  causes  that 
increased  his  numbers  through  this  century ;  for  to 
know  the  causes  of  social  as  of  bodily  diseases  is  half 
the  cure,  supposing  the  case  admits  of  cure. 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  3 II 

The  explanation  of  his  presence  in  our  times  and 
in  recent  times  is  briefly  this  : — Having  no  capital 
of  his  own,  he  must  hire  his  services  to  an  employer, 
and  the  employer  sometimes  wants  his  services, 
sometimes  not.  When  trade  is  good,  when  business 
is  brisk  and  buoyant,  employers  want  him,  want  all 
possible  hands  for  their  work,  and  would  be  glad  to 
have  additional  ones  if  they  could  be  extemporized 
quickly.  Then  is  their  harvest,  the  ready  realization 
of  which  requires  more  men  and  perhaps  women, 
requires  at  least  more  human  labour,  which  may  be 
got  either  by  working  the  same  numbers  extra  time, 
or  by  employing  additional  hands,  sometimes  by  both 
means,  if  the  period  of  hope  is  unusually  prosperous 
and  prolonged.  While  the  good  time  lasts,  all  hands 
are  employed  in  that  special  province  of  industry, 
whether  cotton,  woollen,  linen,  iron,  coal,  shipbuild- 
ing, or  any  other.  Further,  there  is  a  general 
tendency  for  a  gale  of  prosperity  to  spread,  and  to 
buoy  up  more  than  one,  sometimes  nearly  all  in- 
dustries. This  is  the  hopeful  period.  Masters  are 
very  sanguine  ;  at  all  events  they  are  daring  ;  the  more 
they  can  produce  and  sell,  the  greater  their  profits  ; 
if  the  gale  of  prosperity  would  last  a  few  years,  the 
more  fortunate  may  make  fortunes.  All  are  stimu- 
lated, all  strain  their  energies,  they  produce  enough, 
too  much  ;  the  foreign  markets  whence  their  orders 
generally  come  are  glutted.  They  can  sell  no 
more  ;  thc-ir  foreign  correspondent  writes  de- 
spondingly.  There  is  no  use  now  in  producing  more  ; 
it  will  be  unsaleable  save  at  great  sacrifice,  and  it 
was  made  to  be  sold.     Then  comes  the  check,  and  the 


312  SOCIALISM  NEW  AND   OLD. 

dismissal  of  hands.  To  produce  more  would  be  of  no 
use,  while  by  the  dismissal  of  hands,  or  work  at  half- 
time,  much  weekly  wages  at  least  are  saved.  And 
just  as  when  the  trade  was  prosperous  its  pros- 
perity communicated  an  impulse  to  other  connected 
industries,  as  well  as  received  one  from  others  pros- 
pering, so  now  when  the  tide  turns  the  others  like- 
wise feel  the  retiring  ebb  of  prosperity. 

The  modern  industrial  cycle,  consisting  of  the  three 
stages,  average  business,  prosperity,  and  depression, 
and  latterly  contracting  into  the  two  alternate  stages 
or  waves  of  prosperity  and  depression,  explains  in. 
part  the  presence  of  the  unemployed  in  extra  num- 
bers at  particular  times,  as  well  as  in  considerable 
numbers  at  all  times — because  there  are  nearly  always 
some  industries  depressed  even  in  the  best  of  times 
from  special  causes,  and  these  again  are  connected 
with  their  special  circle  of  industries,  which  suffer 
w^ith  them.  Thus,  then,  from  this  cause  there  are 
always  some,  and  sometimes  a  great  many  simul- 
taneously out  of  work. 

There  are  other  causes  for  the  permanent  unem- 
ployed. Agriculture  has  long  been  depressed  in  Eng- 
land, and  this  cause  has  sent  a  permanent  stream  from 
the  rural  regions  into  the  great  industrial  centres  ;  a 
fact  which  constitutes  an  exception  to  the  general  rule 
that  the  unemployed  are  only  temporarily  so,  and 
will  be  again  required  in  their  respective  spheres. 
For  the  agricultural  labourer  who  has  gone  to  the 
towns  will  not  be  required  again  in  the  country  un- 
less English  farming  again  becomes  prosperous,  or 
unless  some  change  is  made  in  our  agrarian  system  to 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  313 

call  the  labourers  back  to  the  land.  This  permaneni 
stream  produces  a  rising  flood  of  unemployed,  es- 
pecially in  London,  unless  they  can  be  absorbed  in 
great  numbers,  and  no  doubt  the  constant  expansion  of 
London  from  other  causes  allows  of  and  creates  work-^ 
for  some  of  them,  but  not  for  all.^     Then  we  have  the  v 

poor  foreign  tradesman  who  comes  to  compete  with -/rO-^v-*/' 
our  tailors  and  needlewomen,  and  who  either  adds  to  vl^  ^^ 
the  unemployed  himself,  or  worse  still,  supplants  the 
English  worker  by  accepting  lower  wages.  We 
have  also  the  Irishman  who  leaves  the  poorer 
country  to  try  his  fortune  in  the  richer,  but  as  he  is 
frequently  an  unskilled  worker,  he  only  gets  the 
rudest  work  and  hardest,  sometimes  none.  His  pre- 
sence, however,  increases  the  unemployed,  using  the 
word  in  a  wider  sense,  to  include  all  kinds  of  labourers, 
even  the  most  casual  when  doing  no  work. 

There  is  also  a  rather  constant  layer  added  by 
the  permanently  displaced  English  worker — the 
worker  who  is  displaced,  not  by  the  cheap  foreign 
labourer,  but  by  labour-saving  machinery.  The  new 
invention  which  makes  the  fortune  for  the  owner  is 
onstantly  scattering  the  workers.  There  is  no 
doubt  some  compensation  for  this  to  the  collectivity 
in  the  cheaper  machine-made  products,  and  even  to 
the  working  class   in  an   ultimate   extension   of  the 

*  The  agricultural  labourer  who  comes  to  London  frequently 
estaVjlishcs  himself  at  the  expense  of  the  Londoner  with  inferior 
physical  stamina  ;  so  that  it  is  the  latter  rather  than  the  former 
who  adds  to  the  unemployed,  and,  no  doubt,  the  like  is  true  as 
regards  other  great  cities. — See  Booth's  "  Life  and  Labour  of 
the  People  "  (of  East  London). 


314  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

field  of  employment,  but  it  is  a  fact  that  great  and 
ever-improving  machinery,  and  machinery  which  is 
constantly  doin^  work  before  only  done  by  men  or 
women,  allows  of  a  less  number  in  that  particular 
instance,  unless  it  is  the  means  of  enlarging  the  busi- 
ness by  enlarging  the  demand,  so  that  the  displaced 
may  be  again  required.  The  latter  may  indeed  happen, 
but  it  requires  time  during  which  the  displaced, 
who  are  more  or  less  skilled  labourers,  swell  the  ranks 
of  the  unemployed.  There  may  not  be  so  many  re- 
quired as  before,  or  their  special  skill  may  be  rendered 
useless  in  the  particular  industry  by  the  machinery, 
and  will  be  still  more  useless  elsewhere,  in  which  case 
they  are  extremely  likely  to  be  permanently  unem- 
ployed, but  possessing  a  special  claim,  as  Mill  says, 
on  the  legislator's  care,  *'  their  interest  having  been 
sacrificed  to  the  gains  of  their  fellow-citizens  and  of 
posterity." 

There  is  also  a  cruel  tendency  in  certain  businesses 
to  dismiss  men  when  their  energy  begins  to  flag  ; 
or,  to  make  sure,  even  earlier,  by  pressing  the  young 
in  earlier  :  and  from  all  these  causes  together  there 
is  always  a  large  army  of  unemployed  in  London, 
while  at  the  present  time "  there  is  rather  more  than 
the  usual  number  for  some  years  back,  even  though 
the  general  depression  is  less  acute  than  it  has  been, 
and  there  are  signs  in  some  quarters  that  we  have 
passed  the  worst. 

But  are  these  depressions  less  unavoidable  ?  It 
would  appear  so ;  because  our  great  industries  produce 

•  The  above  was  written  in  1888  near  the  end  of  the  last 
depression  of  trade. 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  315 

for  a  world-wide  market  ;  while  the  entrepreneurs  are 
largely  in  the  dark  as  to  the  causes  that  may  affect  the 
demand  for  their  goods.  They  cannot  tell  when  a 
demand  may  cease,  or  lessen,  or  increase  ;  they  pro- 
duce normally  on  chance  at  a  certain  rate,  until  the 
demand  increases  or  diminishes.  When  it  increases, 
when  trade  is  good,  competition  urges  all  to  produce 
to  the  utmost,  which  soon  becomes  too  much.  Pro- 
ducers cannot  tell  when  Russia  or  Germany  may 
lay  on  a  tariff,  or  increase  one  already  la'd  en  ;  they 
cannot  tell  when  the  United  States  will  lessen  cne. 
Besides,  trading  countries  are  connected  in  good  or 
bad  fortune ;  foreign  countries  may  be  prosperous 
or  the  reverse  ;  when  their  trade  is  prosperous,  they 
have  the  means  of  purchasing  our  goods  ;  in  the 
reverse  case  they  have  not,  and  their  orders  fall  off : 
from  all  which  it  follows  that  manufacturers  cannot 
know  the  exact  amount  to  produce  in  advance.  They 
await  the  impulse  from  the  outside  ;  when  the  chance 
comes,  they  produce  as  much  as  possible,  and  by 
competition  it  soon  becomes  excessive.  If  the 
foreign  as  well  as  the  home  demand  held  steady, 
they  could  always  keep  on  their  hands  ;  if  it 
was  steadily  increasing,  they  could  constantly 
add  to  them  ;  if  it  even  decreased  according 
to  any  rule  that  could  be  forecast,  the  numbers 
thrown  off  might  eventually  be  otherwise  absorbed. 
But  the  matter  is  largely  chance,  and  all  that  can  be 
foreseen  in  the  case  ol  our  great  staple  trades  is  that 
all  the  hands  will  be  sometimes  wanted  and  some- 
times not.  The  manufacturers,  however,  think  it 
well  to  have  them  when  wanted,  and  nobody  would 


3l6  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

less  like  than  they  that  their  hands  should  emigrate 
in  large  numbers.  If  they  did  so,  it  would  mean  the 
employer's  ruin  when  the  days  of  prosperity  came 
round,  for  the  labourers  cannot  be  dispensed  with, 
and  substitutes,  speaking  generally,  cannot  be  quickly 
got.  The  system,  in  fact,  of  partial  employment  is, 
on  the  whole,  an  excellent  one  for  employers  ;  it 
saves  wages  when  the  hands  are  not  needed,  it 
enables  a  certain  pressure  to  be  brought  to  bear  on 
the  better  operatives  regularly  employed,  and  it  pre- 
vents the  workers  in  general  from  asking  too  high 
wages,  or  asking  them  for  too  long  a  time. 

And  one  conclusion  seems  to  follow  from  the  fact 
that  the  labour  of  most  of  the  unemployed  is  socially 
necessary,  and  necessary  to  the  employers  ;  namely 
that  for  the  very  reason  that  they  are  sometimes  un- 
employed, they  should  get  higher  wages  when  they 
are  employed,  on  Adam  Smith's  principle  that  the 
mason's  wages  are  high  because  he  is  necessarily  a 
considerable  time  doing  no  work.  From  the  point 
of  view  of  justice  and  social  utility  they  should  be 
better  paid  when  they  are  at  work,  but  unless  they 
can  make  their  claim  effective  by  standing  out, 
they  will  have  to  take  such  terms  as  their  masters 
offer. 

Employers,  no  doubt,  cannot  be  expected  to  em- 
ploy people  permanently  at  a  loss.  But  perhaps 
they  are  rather  too  much  given  to  dismissing  them. 
If  employers  were  more  considerate,  were  a  little 
less  under  economical  and  more  under  ethical  motives, 
the  outside  circle  of  the  unemployed  would  be  less, 
and  the  individuals  would  be  in  it  for  a  shorter  time. 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  31/ 

And  it  makes  all  the  difference  to  the  worker  whe- 
ther he  is  out  of  work  ten  weeks  or  twenty  ;  it  may 
be  a  matter  of  life  and  death,  of  pauperization,  humi- 
liation, and  loss  of  self-respect  ;  to  the  employer 
it  is  a  matter  of  making  a  certain  range  of  profits 
supposed  to  be  necessary.  Why  should  he  not  keep 
them  on  until  the  line  of  interest  is  touched  ?  Those 
most  prosperous  and  firmest  on  their  feet  could 
afford  to  do  so,  and  no  doubt  some  of  them  do  act  on 
considerations  other  than  economical  without  suffer- 
ing much  economical  loss.  It  is  even  said  that  com- 
panies have  been  known  to  carry  on  work  with- 
out dismissing  their  hands  while  dividends  were  at 
zero,  the  manager  and  the  workers  sharing  the  whole 
proceeds,  and  the  shareholders  receiving  no  interest. 
This,  no  doubt,  is  a  degree  of  self-sacrifice  that  could 
not  be  expected  to  last  long  with  the  average  share- 
holder; nevertheless  the  fact  suggests  an  interesting 
question  for  the  workers'  meditation,  namely,  whe- 
ther they  might  not  after  all  get  better  terms  from  a 
company  than  from  the  private  capitalist,  who  is 
more  intolerant  of  reduced  profits,  and  less  able  to 
bear  them  than  a  company  where  the  loss  is  spread 
over  a  number,  while  the  manager's  salary  is  assured. 
The  company  is  indeed  popularly  supposed  to  be 
deaf  to  all  considerations  other  than  dividends.  This  is 
doubtful  in  the  case  of  some  producing  companies,  but 
as  between  them  and  the  individual  capitalist  it  is  not 
doubtful  that  the  egoistic  and  strictly  economical 
motives  are  stronger  and  more  concentrated  in  one 
than  in  many.  It  is  indeed,  according  to  orthodox 
economics  because  his  egoism  is  so  alive  and  his  eye 


3l8  SOCIALISM  NEW   AND   OLD 

SO  keen  in  all  directions,  that  the  profits  of  the  private 
capitalist  are  so  large  as  they  are. 

"  But  you  ask  something  too  much  of  us,"  may 
urge  the  capitalist,  "  first  to  share  our  profits  with  our 
employes,  then  to  incur  losses  or  considerably  lowered 
profits  for  their  sake.  The  latter  up  to  a  certain 
point  we  can  do,  provided  we  are  allowed  to  reap  all 
the  profits  when  better  times  come.  But  we  cannot 
do  both,  divide  our  profits  and  suffer  the  losses  ;  and 
we  cannot  keep  permanently  employing  people  in 
producing  goods  which  don't  sell,  when  perhaps  the 
additional  produce  is  worth  nothing,  perhaps  less  than 
nothing,  because  it  helps  to  lower  the  price  of  the 
stock  already  produced.  Our  production  depends  on 
orders  from  without ;  if  we  keep  on  producing  in  slack 
times  irrespective  of  the  demand,  we  should  have 
our  capital  invested  in  the  risky  form  of  unsaleable 
goods,  and  we  could  not  then  go  on  producing  more 
till  our  stock  was  taken  off.  We  would  not  have  the 
means.  We  should  thus  have  finally  to  pull  up,  and  dis- 
miss them,  and  we  ourselves  might  be  ruined  by  having 
our  capital  in  a  form  that  might  have  become  enor- 
mously depreciated  in  value.  So  you  see  there  is  a  limit 
to  our  power  of  keeping  our  hands  at  work,  if  we  are 
to  make  ordinary  profits  and  keep  out  of  the  Bank- 
ruptcy Court.  We  should  prefer  to  employ  them 
always,  and  to  be  always  working  full  time,  if  we  were 
not  to  lose  by  it.  When  our  machinery  is  not  fully  em- 
ployed, we  lose  interest  on  our  capital,  and  we  have 
certain  constant  expenses  ;  during  this  bad  time,  if  we 
kept  on  our  hands,  we  .should  lose  their  wages  like- 
wise. Their  work — the  produce  of  it — during  that  time 


PRACTICABLE  STATE  SOCIALISM.      319 

would  not  be  worth  their  wages  ;  it  might  be  worth 
nothing  at  all.  We  only  dismiss  them  when  we  should 
be  considerable  losers  by  keeping  them,  but  we 
shall  be  glad  to  have  them  back  when  our  accumu- 
lated goods  move  off,  and  the  good  times  come  round 
again." 

Now  there  is  truth  in  this,  so  far  at  least  that  even 
the  best-disposed  employers  must  dismiss  in  stag- 
nant times  a  portion  of  their  hands,  from  which  it 
results  that  there  will  always,  under  the  present 
system,  be  unemployed  more  or  less  numerous  from 
this  cause  as  well  as  from  some  of  the  others  before 
enumerated. 

Such  being  the  state  of  the  case,  the  question 
what  is  to  be  done  with  the  unemployed  becomes  a 
question  as  difficult  as  pressing.  The  workhouse  is 
open  to  them,  as  the  police  magistrate  tells  ther.i ; 
but  the  genuine  unemployed  operative  or  mechanic 
rightly  feels  the  strongest  repugnance  to  the  work- 
house, with  its  degrading  associations.  What  the 
temporary  unemployed  want  is  cither  employment 
by  others,  or  the  means  of  working  at  some  kind  of 
work  on  their  own  account, — some  second  resource  for 
their  slack  time  or  a  reserve  fund  to   fall   back  on.* 

•  If  the  average  time  out  of  work  in  a  trade  could  be  fore- 
seen or  gathered  from  statistics  of  past  years,  this  reserve  fund 
should  come  from  wages  which  should  rise  in  the  same  pro- 
portion as  the  time  of  employment  was  reduced.  Thus,  if  the 
unemployed  time  averaged  ten  weeks,  the  wages  for  forty-two 
weeks  must  serve  for  fifty-two,  and  should  rise  accordingly, 
though  seme  small  deduction  migiit  be  made  to  be  set 
against  the  fact  of  leisure  and  the  individual  chances  of  casual 
work. 


320  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

They  cannot  work  at  their  own  calh'ng  or  craft,  for 
one  reason,  because  they  have  no  capital ;  they  must, 
then,  either  be  set  to  work  by  the  Government  oi 
by  local  authorities.  But  ntither  of  these  can  em- 
ploy them  at  their  own  craft,  because,  amongst  other 
reasons,  they  would  then  be  in  competition  with 
other  labourers  in  their  own  industry  and  would 
injure  them  (a  point  to  be  more  fully  considered  pre- 
sently). They  can  only  be  set  to  some  kind  of  useful 
public  work  requiring  only  rude  labour  of  a  general 
kind  ;  with  of  course  economic  loss,  and  waste  of 
skilled  labour. 

In  parts  of  France  the  artisan  has  often  a  plot  of  land, 
perhaps  an  acre  or  two,  and  that  solves  the  problem  ; 
the  like  is  true  in  parts  of  Switzerland.  They  work 
on  the  land  when  not  otherwise  employed.  Perhaps 
something  in  the  same  direction  might  be  done  for 
our  artisans  to  the  benefit  of  their  health,  as  well  as 
the  increase  of  their  resources.  It  would  also  some- 
what ease  the  public  conscience,  as  well  as  be  a  guaran- 
tee of  public  tranquillity,  and  most  certainly  some- 
thing of  this  kind  should  be  tried.  It  will,  however 
require  the  landlord  and  the  municipality  to  address 
themselves  to  the  problem  in  the  right  frame  of  mind. 
Perhaps  it  will  require  the  reformed  local  govern- 
ment so  long  promised  before  anything  considerable 
can  be  done.* 

'  Written  before  the  Local  Government  of  1888  was  passed, 
which  does  give  certain  powers  of  the  kind  required  to  the 
County  Councils, 


PRACTICABLE   STATE  SOCIALISM.  32I 

VII. 

But  can  society  not  assure  to  the  labourer  work  ;  re- 
cognize the  right  to  labour  as  an  inherent  right  of 
the  working  man  ?  It  seems  at  first  sight  a  reason- 
able demand  that  the  worker  should  be  assured  of 
work,  especially  as  the  State  has  already  guaranteed  iU.,,A^ 
to  him  the  necessaries  of  life  if  he  is  out  of  work  and/ 
in  want 

It  seems  at  first  sight  a  small  thing ;  but  in  reality 
the  right  to  labour  recognized  would  be  a  very  great 
thing,  involving  wide-reaching  and  momentous  con- 
sequences. The  following  is  the  first,  according  to 
most  economists,  including  J.  S.  Mill  : — If  work,  with 
wages,  were  assured  to  all  who  asked  for  them,  not 
merely  to-day  but  in  future,  there  would  be  such  a 
premium  put  on  population,  there  would  come  such 
an  ever-increasing  throng  of  claimants,  that  profitable 
work  could  not  after  a  time  be  found  for  all :  the  re- 
sults of  their  work  would  not  be  worth  their  wages  in 
the  case  of  an  increasing  number  of  labourers,  and  as 
the  right  to  work  would  involve  the  right  to  at  least 
necessaries  so  long  as  society  possessed  reserved 
means, — the  increasing  deficiency  in  the  results  of 
inferior  labour  would  have  to  be  made  up  by  in 
creasing  taxation  of  the  wealthier  members,until  at  last 
the  whole  annual  income  of  the  country  would  barely 
afford  subsistence  to  the  population.  The  tax  for 
the  sup[)ort  of  the  poor  would  engross  the  whole 
net  produce  of  the  country,  the  payers  and  receivers 
having  at  last  reached  equality  in  a  universal  poverty. 
At  that  point,  according  to  Mill,  the  check  on  popu- 


322  SOCIALISM  NEW  AND  OLD. 

lation  could  no  longer  be  postponed  ;  it  would  have 
to  be  applied,  or  the  increased  numbers  would  die  of 
starvation  ;  it  would  have  to  be  applied  suddenly, 
civilization,  culture,  and  everything  that  places  man- 
kind above  a  nest  of  ants  or  a  colony  of  beavers 
having  been  sacrificed  in  the  interval,  for  the  sorry 
result  of  a  large  population  whose  sole  care  is  to  have 
sufficient  food. 

If  the  morrow  were  perfectly  assured,  if  work  were 
certain  or,  work  failing,  if  subsistence  were  assured 
on  conditions  not  somewhat  disagreeable,  there 
would  be  no  restraint,  Mill  contends,  on  population. 
At  present  there  is  a  natural  restraint  from  the 
difficulty  of  finding  employment,  and  the  moderate 
wages  paid  to  those  employed.  Life  must  not  be 
too  pleasant  nor  too  sure,  or  else  increased  throngs 
would  soon  come  to  share  the  banquet,  which  would 
soon  become  a  sorry  one  for  all  at  the  board.  Such 
is  the  view  of  Mill  and  most  English  political  econo- 
mists. There  are  those  who  deny  that  certainty  of 
work  would  cause  labourers  to  marry  earlier  and  to 
have  larger  families,  who  say  that  the  more  the 
morrow  is  assured  and  the  better  their  condition 
grows,  the  less  children  are  the  result  ;  that  poverty 
makes  the  poor  reckless  and  at  the  same  time  pro- 
lific, that  if  their  condition  were  first  raised  and 
assured,  the  danger  from  over- population  would 
cease.  This  is  M.  de  Laveleye's  opinion,  whose  con- 
tention is  that  "  misery  and  ignorance "  are  the 
causes  of  too  many  children,  while  diffused  educa- 
tion and  moderate  comfort  make  men  provident. 
It  is  not  perfectly  certain,  then,  that  if  subsistence 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  323 

were  certain,  or  it  work  were  assured  to  all  who 
claimed  it,  the  population  would  increase  to  the 
alarming  extent  dreaded  by  Mill,  because  if  food 
were  as  certain  as  air,  and  as  easily  obtained, 
labourers  might  come  to  think  that  still  life  was  not 
so  fine  a  thing  as  to  justify  their  calling  in  ever  in- 
creased numbers.  If  food  were  assured,  other  things 
that  were  not  assured  would  perhaps  grow  desirable, 
and  be  regarded  as  necessaries ;  in  other  words, 
their  standard  of  comfort  or  of  what  was  necessary 
for  a  life  worth  living  might  rise.  This  is  no  doubt 
sustainable ;  but  probably  full  assurance  of  the 
future  in  the  existing  lowest  grades  of  labour  would 
be  a  source  of  danger,  because  the  evil  consequences 
of  over-population  would  be  distant,  and  the  brunt 
of  the  danger  would  be  borne  by  the  rich  when  it  did 
come.  The  evils  would  fall  on  the  rich,  who  could 
and,  in  the  opinion  of  the  poorer  classes,  should 
bear  them  ;  the  pleasure  and  gratification  would  be 
their  own.  - 

It  must,  however,  be  observed  that  if  the  fear  of  a 
superabundant  population  were  the  sole  objection  to 
the  allowance  of  the  right  to  labour,  it  can  hardly  be 
doubted  that  means  could  be  devised  to  restrain 
population.if  the  disagreeable  necessity  were  forced  on 
society.  But  there  are  other  objections  to  the  right 
to  labour  besides  the  possible  swamping  of  society's 
sh'p  through  sheer  numbers.  The  ri^ht  being  re- 
cognized, the  State  or  the  municipalities  or  the 
county  authorities  would  have  to  provide  work,  as 
well  as  recognize  the  right  to  work,  in  ca-e  private 
enterprise   failed  to   provide  it ;    that  is  to  say,  the 


324  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

State  would  have  to  start  at  once  on  the  lines  of 
advanced    Socialism,    and    this    it    is    by    no    means 
ready  to  do.      The  statesman  at  present  says  to  the 
labourer   out    of   work,   "The  State   cannot   under- 
take   to    find    work    for    you ;    if  it  did    find    really 
paying  work  for  you,  such  as  you  have  been  doing,  it 
would  be  at  the  expense  of  your  comrades  now  em- 
ployed ;  and  if  it  were  not  paying  work,  if  the  results 
would  not  support  you,  the  taxpayers  would  have  to 
make  it  up,  and  the  more  of  you  that  came,  the  more 
they  would  have  to  contribute.     The  reason  you  are 
now   out    of  work  is    because    your   work   waS   not 
sufficiently   profitable   to  your   late   employer;    the 
reason  this  work  which  you  ask  the  State  to  undertake 
was    not    undertaken   is    because    it   would  not   pay 
current  profits,  at  least  in  most  cases.     Why,  then, 
should  the    Government    undertake  it  ?      And   if  it 
did,  you   are  not  exactly  the  class   of  workers  that 
it   would    prefer    to    employ.      Possibly   with    select 
workers   and   good    superintendents   it   might    make 
the    work    commercially    paying,    but    hardly    with 
you,  if  it   may  be  said  without  offence.      But  there 
is   a   stronger  reason    against  its    undertaking  such 
work.      The   State,   the   Government,  does  not  con- 
sider it  amongst  its  functions  or  duties  to   find  work 
for  all  citizens,  and  then  to  set  them  at  it ;  it   is  not 
at  present  constituted  for  such  a  purpose,  and,  to  say 
the  truth,  is  not  well  suited  for  it.      Neither,  for  that 
matter,  is  the  local  authority.     It  cannot,   then,  do 
what   you    want,    start   the    work    you    recommend, 
without   working   at    a  loss   to    be    borne    by  other 
citizens,  while   even  if  working  successfully  and   on 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  325 

business  principles,  it  would  come  in  competition  with 
the  same  kind  of  work  under  private  enterprise,  in 
which  case  it  would  to  the  extent  it  succeeded  create 
as  many  fresh  unemployed  as  it  had  set  to  work. 

"The  Government  cannot,  then,  guarantee  you 
work  ;  but  it  accepts  the  responsibility  of  trying  to 
make  the  total  field  of  industry  as  wide  as  possible 
for  you  ;  of  giving  to  all  citizens  in  future  more  and 
fairer  chances  of  helping  themselves,  by  educational 
facilities  and  in  other  ways.  The  State  can  reform 
unwise  laws  or  unjust  laws  that  may  have  injured 
the  labouring  classes.  It  will  interfere  to  protect 
your  life,  your  property,  your  health.  It  can  re- 
adjust the  burden  of  taxation,  perhaps,  a  little  more 
equitably,  and  in  your  favour.  In  these  and  other 
ways  within  the  understood  limits,  the  State  can  help 
to  place  labourers  in  a  better  and  a  fairer  position, 
after  which  their  fate  must  be  left  to  themselves,  our 
Government  not  being  a  paternal  one,  and  its  policy 
having  had  for  aim  the  making  of  self-reliant,  pru- 
dent, and  persevering  men  rather  than  grown  children  ; 
though  even  if  the  State  could  make  all  its  citizens 
Comfortable,  provide  for  all  their  wants,  and  remove  all 
risk  and  danger,  such  a  consummation  would  be  dearly 
purchased  by  the  sapping  of  the  high  virtues  of  sclf- 
dcpendcnce  and  forethought:  which  would  be  the 
only  sure  result  of  the  otherwise  futile  and  impossible 
aim. 

"  As  for  the  existing  unemployed,  whose  case  we 
sincerely  deplore,  the  State  or  the  municipalities 
will  do  what  is  p(jssible  within  the  limits  laid  down 
to  mitigate   temporary  hardships.     Relief  work   of  a 


326  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

useful  nature,  in  which  there  is  no  danger  of  com- 
peting with  private  enterprise,  will  be  undertaken  in 
supplement  to  private  benevolence.  More  the  State 
cannot  promise  without  changing  its  functions,  with- 
out entering  on  new  paths  fraught  with  risk  to 
national  interests,  and  especially  the  material  and 
moral  interests  of  the  working  classes  themselves." 


CHAPTER   X, 

ON  SOME  SPECIFIC  REMEDIES  FOR  LOW  WAGES 
AND   UNEMPLOYED   LABOUR. 

I. 

But  besides  labourers  temporarily  unemployed  from 
depressed  trade  or  other  causes,  whose  case  we  have 
just  considered,  there  are  labourers  regularly  employed 
at  long  hours,  and  others  again  regularly  but  intermit- 
tently employed  at  wages  not  rising  above  Ricardo's 
minimum,  corresponding  to  a  low  standard  of  comfort, 
and  sometimes,  thoui^h  not  in  relatively  many  cases, 
falling  be!ow  it  ;  while,  worse  yet,  there  is  a  mass  of 
casual  lab')urers,  including  many  degraded  ones, 
whether  from  bad  character  or  chance,  who  are  in  re- 
ceipt of  still  less  wages  for  such  services  as  they  render. 
We  are  here  concerned  with  the  first  clas-,  the 
case  of  common,  unskilled  or  but  slightly  skilled 
labourers  at  low  wages  or  bare  subsistence  wages,  and 
the  question  arises  whether  the  State  could  do  any- 
thing to  raise  the  wages,  or  whether  the  labourers 
themselves  by  Trades  Unionism,  or  any  other 
agency,  might  hope  to  do  so  ;  in  short  whether  there 
is  any,  and,  if  so,  what  cure  for  low  wages,  short  of 
Socialism,  which  would  make  all  wages  depend  on 
hours  of  average  work 


S2S  SOCIALISM   KE\Y  AND   OLD. 

The  State  could  indeed  fix  a  minimum  wage,  as  at 
present  recommended  by  some  Socialists  as  a  pro- 
visional measure ;  it  could  compel  an  employer  to 
pay  all  labourers  that  he  actually  employed  not  less 
than  a  certain  wage,'  but  it  could  not  compel  him  to 
employ  more  at  that  wage  than  he  thought  would  be 
profitable  for  himself.  The  result  (apart  from  possible 
collusions  to  evade  the  law)  would  be  that  he  would, 
in  general,  employ  fewer  labourers,  and  in  certain 
cases,  where  profits  would  be  greatly  reduced,  none 
at  all  after  a  time.  The  State  would  thus  have  done 
injury  to  the  labourers  that  its  action  had  driven 
out  of  employment,  unless  it  followed  up  its  benevo- 
lent intentions  either  by  itself  employing  such,  by 
supporting  them  without  employment,  or  by  supply- 
ing them  with  the  means  of  emigration,  in  case  they 
were  inclined  to  emigrate.  Of  these  three  courses, 
the  two  last  would  hardly  be  recommended,  or  the 
last  only  in  certain  cases  ;  and  the  consequences  of 
the  former  we  have  already  considered.  The  Socialists 
are  indeed  consequent  in  urging  it,  because  it  would 
be  an  important  step  in  the  direction  of  Socialism, 
and  one  which  would  necessitate  further  steps. 

But  could  not  labourers  at  low  waj^es,  by  forming 
Trades  Unions,  and  by  refusing  to  sell  their  labour 
for  less  than  a  certain  amount,  themselves  effectually 
fix  a  minimum  wage  ?  They  certainly  could  in  most 
cases  form  Trades  Unions,  and  they  could  compel 
the  employer  to  pay  such  higher  wage  if  he  employed 

'  Though  it  would  be  difficult  to  prevent  evasions  of  the  law 
ii!  those  cases  where  labourers  would  prefer  lower  wages  than  the 
legal  minimum  to  none. 


ON   SOME   REMEDIES   FOR    LOW   WAGES,   ETC.     329 

any  of  them  ;  but  such  unions  would  be  extremely- 
unlikely  to  embrace  all  the  labourers,  many  of  whom 
would  merely  have  shut  themselves  out  of  the  parti- 
cular employment,  and,  if  such'  Trades  Unions  were 
universal  over  the  country,  out  of  any  similar  employ- 
ment elsewhere,  by  insisting  on  the  higher  wages. 
Higher  wages  they  might,  and  in  most  cases  probably 
could  secure  for  the  better  labourers,  supposing  a 
certain  quantity  of  the  labour  indispensable.  They 
could  not  secure  it  for  all  without  lowering  employers' 
profits,  unless  in  those  cases  where  the  demand  was 
constant,  and  where  consequently  the  price  of  the 
commodity  produced  (or  the  service  done)  by  the 
labourer  could  be  raised  on  the  consumer  or  final 
purchaser,  which,  speaking  generally,  it  could  not. 
Some  of  the  labourers  would  therefore  be  thrown  out 
of  employment,  and  if  such  Trades  Unions,  embracing 
all  unskilled  labourers,  were  universal,  and  all  tried  to 
raise  wages,  a  certain  proportion  of  them,  increasing 
with  the  amount  of  increase  demanded,  would  be 
thrown  out  of  work  everywhere.  One-half  or  two- 
thirds  of  them  might  secure  a  rise  of  wages,  the  re- 
mainder being  dispensed  with.  The  latter  would  be 
thrfjwn  on  some  fcjrm  of  public  charity,  and  the  ulti- 
mate result  would  probably  be  that  they  would  be  glad 
to  take  the  low  wage  rather  than  alms  or  out-door 
relief.  There  arc,  indeed,  some  who  say  that  it  would 
be  better  for  the  labourers  in  such  cases,  and  in  all 
caseswhcre  wages  fall  below  the  minimum,  to  stand  out 
for  at  least  enough  wages  to  live  upon  ;  perhaps  they 
should  do  so  :  the  result  would  then  be  that  all  who 
were  employed  at  all  would  have  sufficient  wages,  and 


330  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

all  the  rest  would  be  out  of  employment,  living 
on  alms  or  on  the  poor-rates,  and  the  thinking  public 
and  the  labourers  themselves  might  then  be  led  to 
inquire  into  the  causes  of  the  previous  low  wages,  and 
thereafter  to  find  the  possible  remedies. 

It  is  not  in  general  because  employers  are  getting 
excessive  profits  that  wages  are  low,  because  unless 
where  there  is  monopoly  or  combination,  or  where 
the  profits  are  known  only  to  the  employer,  competi- 
tion reduces  the  profits  to  the  ordinary  level.  High 
profits  cannot  be  the  cause  of  low  wages  in  most  cases, 
though  they  may  be  in  a  considerable  proportion  of 
cases,  and  here  Trades  Unions  might  help  to  lower 
them.  What  then  is  the  cause  of  low  wages  where 
they  do  exist,  or  on  what  do  the  wages  depend  ?  The 
wages  of  common  labour,  as  the  wages  of  skilled 
labour,  depend  on  a  variety  of  considerations,  the 
chief  of  which  is,  no  doubt,  the  demand,  the  amount 
of  need  of  the  general  public  for  their  services  in 
comparison  with  the  number  of  the  labourers.  It  is 
not  the  absolute  number  of  the  labourers,  but  the 
ratio,  the  proportion  between  the  numbers  and  the 
need  for  them,  and  this  need  or  demand  is  partly  a  fixed 
amount,  as  in  the  case  where  the  labour  is  related  to 
necessary  commodities  or  services,  partly  it  is  variable. 
In  Australia  and  America  the  wages  of  common  labour 
are  high,  in  Ireland  low,  in  some  parts  of  England 
higher  than  others,  on  account  of  this  proportion 
varying  in  favour  of  the  labourer  or  against  him. 
The  wages  also  depend  on  the  comparative  amount 
of  capital  in  a  country,  both  fixed  and  circulating, 
and  on  the  proportion  between  these  two  parts  ;  on 


ON    SOME   REMEDIES   FOR   LOW   WAGES,    ETC.     33 1 

the  proportion  ot  capital  retained  at  home  as  com- 
pared with  the  amount  that  is  invested  abroad  ;  the 
amount  of  capital  depending  on  the  saving  habits  and 
security    in    the    country.      Wages    depend,   too,    on 
whether  employers  can  find  profitable  fields  of  enter- 
prise, and  on  the  nature  of  such  ;  whether  they  supply 
necessaries  or  an  old  and  general  want  more  cheaply, 
or  merely  minister  to  a  luxurious  want  or  a  wholly 
new  want,  in  the  former  case  profiting  labourers,  in 
the  latter  not  ;  and  all  this  depends  on  the  consumers. 
The  wages  of  common  labour  depend  to  a  consider- 
able extent  on  the  kind  of  expenditure  of  rich  or  well- 
to-do  people,  as  well  as  on  the  amount  of  it,  and  on 
the  proportion  between  saving  and  expenditure.    They 
depend  on  the  relative  number  of  the  class  of  labourers, 
which  depends  partly  on  their  habits  with  respect  to 
marriage  ;  on  whether  they  had  chances  when  young 
of  learning  any  art  or  craft  that  would  have  enabled 
them  to  rise  out  of  the  class,  and  thereby  lessen  its 
numbers  ;  on  the  degree  of  their  attachment  to  their 
place  of  birth  or   country,  that   is,  on   their  willing- 
ness or  the  contrary  to  emigrate  and  thereby  lessen 
the  numbers;  again,  on  whether  the  numbers   have 
been  increased  without  their  will  or  consent  by  foreign 
immigrants,  or  by  degraded  labourers  of  their  own 
countrymen  dropping  down  into  their  class,  or  by  a 
layer  of  temporarily  unemployed  labourers  being  added 
to  it ;  again,  on  the  number  of  deserters  and  social 
malingerers  who  pass  out  of  their  ranks  into  a  lower 
deep  because  work  is  disagreeable.     All  these  thin^js 
have  to  do   with  the  amount  of  wages  of  common 
labourers  ;   but  above  all   it  depends,  ca^Mtal   being 


332  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

assumed  to  be  in  existence,  on  the  demand  and  the 
extensibility  of  the  demand  for  the  products  or  services 
in  which  such  common  labour  issues  or  objectifies 
itself,  which  itself  is  bound  up  largely  with  the  general 
wealth,  more  especially  with  demand  at  home  and 
abroad  for  those  manufactures  in  which  we  have  the 
greatest  advantage,  the  extension  of  which  increases 
not  merely  the  amount  of  skilled  labour  directly  re- 
quired, but  the  amount  of  common  labour  indirectly 
required.  If  this  widens,  there  will  be  greater  de- 
mand for  common  labour  and  increased  wages  for 
preferred  hands,  and  probably  for  all :  if  it  contracts, 
there  will  be  less  wages  even  for  the  fewer  employed. 
Wages  in  such  cases  might  sink  even  below  the 
Ricardian  minimum  :  the  labour  might  really  be 
worth  no  more  to  the  employer,  however  much  it 
might  have  cost  in  efforts  to  the  labourer. 

IL 

In  dealing  with  the  problem  of  wages,  the  "classi- 
cal "  economists  usually  commenced  by  the  assump- 
tion of  a  general  or  average  rate  of  wages,  and  they 
laid  down  that  this  general  rate  depended  on  the 
ratio  between  the  supply  of  labour  and  the  demand  for 
it ;  more  briefly,  on  the  proportion  between  capital 
and  population  ;  more  precisely,  as  put  by  Mill,  on 
the  proportion  between  the  wages-fund  or  "  the  funds 
of  all  sorts  destined  for  the  payment  of  labour/'  and 
the  entire  labouring  population,  whether  productively 
or  unproductively  employed. 

To   this  method  it  was  objected  that  the  general 
rate  of  v^ages  has  no  real  existence;  that  there  is  no 


ON   SOME   REMEDIES   FOR   LOW   WAGES,  ETC.     333 

general  rate  in  a  country,  but  only  in  a  particular  em- 
ployment within  a  limited  locality,  however  the  latter 
may  tend  to  widen  with  greater  mobility  of  labour  ; 
and,  secondly,  it  was  objected  that  Mill's  mode  of 
determining  the  average  or  general  rate,  by  dividing 
the  wages-fund  by  the  number  of  the  labourers,  must  be 
unfruitful  so  long  as  the  fund  itself  was  indeterminate 
in  amount.  The  theory  was  finally  abandoned  by 
Mill  after  the  attacks  of  Thornton,  but  it  still 
remains  in  his  work  on  Political  Economy  as  the 
basis  of  all  his  reasonings  and  conclusions  respecting 
wages,  profits,  and  rents,  together  with  their  tendency 
in  the  luture.  According  to  him,  the  cause  of  low 
wages  was  excessive  numbers,  and  the  only  temporary 
cure  was  depletion  of  numbers  by  emigration,  the 
only  permanent  cure  was  a  due  restraint  on  population 
for  the  future,  which  could  not  be  counted  upon  un- 
less poverty  could  be  extinguished  (chiefly  by  emigra- 
tion) for  one  whole  generation,  during  which  time  the 
rising  generation  might  become  habituated  to  a  higher 
standard  of  comfort.  There  was  no  other  cure  for 
low  wages,  he  argued  ;  and  he  certainly  gives  strong 
reasons  to  show  that  the  currently  proposed  remedies 
of  his  time,  such  as  supplements  in  aid  of  low  wages, 
a  minimum  wage  fixed  by  law,  even  allotments,  if 
under  a  certain  size,  were  delusive. 

So  wrote  Mill  in  1848,  and  though  in  [869  he  gave 
up  the  wages-fund  theory,  he  never  gave  up  his  views 
on  population.  Nevertheless,  population  has  greatly 
increased  since  1848,  especially  in  Great  Britain,  while 
the  wages  of  all  grades,  including  the  lowest,  have  in- 
creased ;  moreover,  pauperism  has  diminished.    What, 


334  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

then,  is  the  explanation  of  this  result,  so  dififerent  from 
Mill's  prophecy,  and  with  no  room  allowed  for  it  in  his 
theory  which  seemingly  shut  out  the  possibility  of  it? 
The  reason  is  not  far  to  seek  :  it  is,  indeed,  implicitly 
recognized  elsewhere  by  Mill,  though  not  when  he 
lays  down  his  official  theory.     The  reason  is  that  our 
manufactures,  in  which  there  is  a  law  of  increasing 
return,  have  been  vastly  expanded,  while  entirely  new 
industries  have  been   since  created  ;  and  that  by  the 
greater  concentration   of  labour  and  capital   in  this 
direction  there  has   been  additional  employment  at 
better  wages,  while  by  selling  our  manufactured  pro- 
ducts to  foreign  nations  we  have  been  able  to  draw 
half  our  bread  supply  from  countries  where  the  "  law 
of  diminishing  return  "  is  not  yet  felt.     We  have  thus 
escaped,  so  far  as  food  is  concerned,  from  the  law  of 
diminishing  return  at  home,  which  fact  or  law,  as  the 
economists  show,  is  the  only  reason  why  increased 
population  should  not  continually  bring  with  it  a  still 
more  increased  return.    The  law  of  diminishing  return 
is  for  the  present  suspended,  so  long  as  we  can  draw 
corn  freely  from  America  ;  it  does  not  affect  us  much 
more  than  the  Americans  so  far  as  our  staple  food  for 
labourers  is  concerned,  though   it   may  affect  us  as 
regards  other  necessaries  drawn  from  the  soil  or  be- 
neath it  (e.g.,  fuel)  which  cannot  be  so  easily  imported. 
It  cannot,  therefore,   be  offered  as  the   final   reason 
why  labourers  must  restrain  population,  the  agricul- 
tural situation  in  England  being  that  only  the  best  soils 
are  cultivated,  while  labour  has  gone  increasingly  to 
manufactures,  where  there  is  an  increasing  return  ;  a 
fact  which    explains   the    rise   of  wages    even   with 


ON   SOME   REMEDIES   FOR   LOW   WAGES,   ETC.     335 

an  increased  population,  in  spite  of  the  economists* 
prophecies. 

But  why,  it  may  be  asked,  have  they  not  risen  still 
higher,  if  there  is  a  law  of  increasing  production  in  all 
directions,  the  culture  of  land  not  excepted,  if  we  in- 
clude as  concerning  us  the  countries  with  which  we  are 
industrially  connected  through  trade,  which  supply  us 
with  food  ?  The  fact  is,  we  could  go  on  for  a  long 
time  increasing  production,  and  with  increasing  ad- 
vantage, at  the  same  time  increasing  our  capital  and 
population,  if  other  nations  would  freely  buy  from 
us,  or  freely  exchange  with  us.  But  they  will  not  do 
so  in  general ;  they  impose  duties  which  narrow  our 
market :  the  result  is,  that  our  production  for  export 
must  be  limited  to  the  foreign  demand,  or  we  may 
produce  too  much.  And  this  fact  which  limits  our 
production  limits  our  power  of  pu.chasing  food  in 
indefinitely  greater  quantities,  and  thus  we  see  both 
why  wages  have  risen  with  increasing  population,  and 
why  they  have  not  risen  still  higher  ;  and  we  can  see 
also  why,  though  population  may  still  increase,  the 
rate  of  increase  may  in  future  have  to  be  somewhat 
slackened  to  prevent  wages  from  falling. 

In  Cairnes,  who  substantially  follows  Mill  in  treating 
of  wages,  we  have  an  amended  form  of  the  wages-fund 
theory.  He  follows  the  same  method,  dealing  with 
the  problem  of  general  or  average  wages  in  spite  of 
his  recognition  with  Mill  of  "  non-competing  industrial 
groups."  He  adopts  most  of  Mill's  conclusions,  but 
goes  beyond  him  in  his  own  pessimistic  one  as  to  the 
tendencies  of  wages  to  become  relatively  lower  under 
the  existing  system  of  hired  labour.     He  certainly 


336  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

presents  the  wages-fund  theory  in  a  clearer  and  less 
objectionable  form.  The  fund,  omitting  a  small  and 
unimportant  part,  is,  he  holds,  a  portion  of  capital. 
Its  amount  depends  on  the  nature  of  the  national  in- 
dustries, being  relatively  greater  in  agriculture  than  in 
manufactures,  where  a  large  part  of  capital  takes  the 
form  of  instruments  to  aid  labour.  The  tendency  oi  the 
wages  fund  is  to  lag  behind  the  other  parts  of  capital, 
from  which  he  concludes  that  the  number  of  those 
who  do  not  live  by  hired  labour  will  increase  relatively 
to  those  who  do,  and  that  the  existing  inequality  will 
grow  greater :  "  The  rich  will  grow  richer,  and  the 
poor,  at  least  relatively,  poorer."  Finally,  he  gives  us 
his  remedy,  which  is  the  same  as  Mill's  ultimate  one, 
namely,  co-operative  production,  "  the  sole  means  of 
escape,"  as  he  declares,  "  from  a  harsh  and  hopeless 
destiny." 

Such  is  the  conclusion  to  which  his  reasoning  about 
an  average  or  general  rate  of  wages  leads  him,  a 
method  which  tends  to  hide  the  fact  that  the  real 
-wages  of  labourers  in  different  grades,  as  well  as  their 
real  condition,  are  very  different,  and  a  conclusion 
which  ignores  the  fact  that  some  are  very  hopeful, 
many  tolerably  satisfied  with  their  condition,  and  that 
most  of  them  have  no  desire  for  the  remedy,  or  belief 
in  the  plan  of  salvation,  he  would  have  them  all  accept. 
According  to  the  terms  of  his  conclusion,  all  labourers 
are  victims  of  a  "  harsh  and  hopeless  destiny ; "  all 
are  equally  deserving  our  pit)'  a  id  sympathy.  All  of 
them,  too,  should  be  equally  anxious  for  a  change,  and 
co-operative  production  is  the  remedy  for  all,  the  uni- 
form and  the  sole  remedy :  a  conclusion  to  which  his  ab- 


ON    SOME   REMEDIES   FOR   LOW   WAGES,   ETC.     337 

stract  method,  which  requires  him  to  shut  his  eyes 
to  differences,  even  necessarily  leads  him,  although  his 
recognition  of  "non-competing  industrial  groups," 
with  great  differences  of  wages  in  each,  should  have 
prevented  him  from  drawing  it ;  while,  again,  attention 
to  facts  would  have  shown  the  futility  of  the  cure  where 
most  needed,  namely,  for  common  and  badly-paid 
labourers,  co-operative  production  being  obviously  in- 
applicable to  their  labour,  and  otherwise  impossible 
from  want  of  capital ;  while  skilled  labourers,  with  good 
wages,  who  might  therefore  save  and  co-operate,  prefer 
the  present  system  because  their  wages  are  so  good, 
and  they  fear  to  lose  the  substance  for  the  shadow. 

Even  the  reasoning  by  which  Cairnes  reaches  his 
general  conclusion  affecting  the  whole  mass  of  the 
labouring  population,  and  the  amount  to  be  divided 
amongst  thtm  as  wages,  is  not  unexceptionable. 

He  allows  that  there  has  been  a  huge  increase  in 
wealth,  that  a  given  exertion  of  labour  and  capital  will 
produce  five,  ten,  twenty  times  the  result  as  compared 
with  that  of  a  like  exertion  a  hundred  years  ago,  and 
he  raises  an  interesting  question  as  to  the  distribution 
of  all  this  wealth.  Where  has  it  all  gone?  The 
greater  part,  it  seems,  has  gone  to  the  landlords  in 
increased  rents;  the  rate  of  wages  has  hardly  risen, 
while  the  rate  of  profits  has  not  risen  at  all  ;  the  latter 
statement  as  to  the  rate  of  profits  being  away  from 
the  real  question,  and  misleading,  the  former  not  the 
fact.  The  share  of  the  landlord,  though  no  doubt  it 
has  been  and  is  still  great,  is  much  exaggerated  :  '*  the 

»  See  GiHen  on  "  The  Growth  of  Capital,"  p.  113.  CairneV 
mistake  was  most  probably  suggested  by  Mill's  chapter  on  th 


33S  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

capitalist  class — employing,  financing,  distributing — 
has  gained  in  a  far  greater  proportion  by  it,  and,  as 
he  afterwards  notes,  the  rate  of  profits  is  simply  no 
sign  of,  and  should,  therefore,  not  be  offered  as  an  ex- 
planation of  the  condition  of  the  class,  or  the  amount 
of  their  incomes  ;  while,  further,  a  large  portion  o  "  the 
wealth  has  somehow  found  its  way  into  the  hands 
of  the  professional  and  middle  class,  other  than  the 
larger  capitalists,  though  his  method  of  inquiry  and 
theory  of  distribution  gives  no  account  of  it.  He  is 
disposed,  indeed,  to  allow  a  slight  increase  in  average 
wages,  from  the  labourers'  necessaries  being  slightly 
cheapened  ;  he  does  not  allow  that  they  have  been 
cheapened  much,  the  improvements  in  production 
having  chiefly  applied  to  luxuries  out  of  the  labourer's 
range  of  wants  or  powers  of  purchase.  In  brief,  the 
wages-fund  is  less  because  the  landlords  got  the  largest 
share  of  the  new  wealth,  leaving  less  for  capitalists 
and  labourers  ;  secondly,  because  the  share  of  capital 
that  went  as  wages  fund  was  largely  diminished  by 
the  amount  of  fixed  capital  increasingly  necessary ; 
and  lastly,  because  labourers'  necessaries  were  but 
slightly  reduced  ;  the  first  and  last  being  contrary  to 
facts,  the  w^hole  theory  imperfect,  and  the  practical 

"Influence  of  Progress  on  Rents,  Profits,  &c  ,"  in  which  Mill 
lays  down  that  the  tendency  of  a  society  constituted  of 
landlords,  capitalists,  and  labourers  "  is  to  the  progressive  en- 
richment of  the  landlord  class  :  "  the  argument  depending  on 
the  assumption  that  all  our  food  is  drawn  from  England,  and 
that  the  law  of  diminishing  return  has  to  be  fought  against  by 
agricultural  improvements  ;  the  fact  being  that  the  margin  of 
cultivation  has  gieutiy  icceded,  and  that  icnts  have  been  for  a 
lung  time  ialling. 


ON   SOME   REMEDIES   FOR   LOW   WAGES,   ETC.      339 

remedy  based  on  it  largely  impracticable,  as  well  as 
illusory,  where  most  required. 

The  true  state  of  the  case  is  no  doubt  as  Mr.  Giffcn 
represents  it :  that  wages  have  increased  in  all  the 
grades  of  labour  down  to  the  lowest  during  the  last 
fifty  years,  though  the  increase  has  been  relatively 
less  in  the  lowest  grade  ;  that  most  labourers'  neces- 
saries have  been  cheapened,  except  house-rent  and 
agricultural  products  other  than  corn  ;  that  the  wages- 
fund,  therefore,  or  the  amount  of  capital  that  goes 
to  the  payment  of  labourers,  has  not  diminished  m.uch 
relatively,  or  apart  altogether  from  the  wages-fund 
theory,  that  the  portion  of  produce  which  capitalists 
have  retained  as  their  reward  has  not  so  greatly  in- 
creased ;  while,  moreover,  a  part  of  that,  as  well  as  of 
landlords'  rents  and  of  taxes,  goes  to  hired  unpro- 
ductive labourers — a  fact  which,  though  mentioned,  is 
afterwards  forgotten  by  Cairncs.  There  has  been  an 
improvement,  then,  though  the  condition  of  common 
labourers  still  leaves  much  to  be  desired. 

The  further  cure  for  low  wages,  at  least  for  England, 
the  circumstances  of  each  country  being  special,  would 
consist  not  so  much  in  emigration  or  additional 
restraints  on  population  (though  both  may  be  neces- 
sary in  future  to  some  extent),  as  in  the  di^covcry  of 
new  and  free  markets  for  our  manufactures ;  the 
diminution  or  removal  of  hostile  tariffs  by  treaties  or 
conventions,  which  where  our  self-governed  colonies 
are  concerned  might  be  arranged  between  the  Imperial 
and  Colonial  Governments;  inventions  which  cheapen 
production  of  any  kind,  and  which,  though  at  first  they 
give  less  employment,  open  the  way  for  more  ulti- 


340  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

mately.  These,  on  the  economical  side  ;  on  the  moral 
as  well  as  economical  side,  a  willingness  to  save  for 
less  interest,  and  to  devote  business  abilities  for  less 
than  present  remuneration, — both  implying  profit- 
sharing  in  a  wide  sense, — would  give  employment  to 
all  labourers  down  to  the  lowest  at  increased  wages  ; 
while  increased  saving,  accompanied  with  less  luxu- 
rious expenditure,  would  tend  to  give  a  greater 
abundance,  and  by  consequence  greater  wages  to  all, 
though  it  would  convert  some  labourers  who  make 
luxuries  for  the  rich  into  labourers  for  a  wider  circle 
of  clients.  It  would,  in  fact,  partly  realize  the  Socialist 
levelling  aims  spontaneously  ;  though  as  it  implies  a 
serious  change  of  moral  disposition,  it  is  rather  to  be 
wished  than  expected,  at  least  for  some  considerable 
time  to  come. 

The  labourers  on  their  side  may  in  certain  regions, 
especially  in  the  lowest  grades,  exercise  a  greater 
restraint  on  population  in  the  future,  though  even 
here  absolute  and  general  rules  cannot  safely  be  laid 
down.  It  is,  however,  certain  that  if  the  advice  of 
Malthus  had  been  acted  on  ever  since  he  gave  it 
in  i/pS,  the  enormous  development  of  wealth  whichhas 
since  resulted  would  have  been  impossible  for  want  of 
labourers ;  while  it  is  doubtful  if  the  fewer  labourers 
that  would  now  be  in  existence  would  have  much 
higher  wages.  Most  certainly,  without  the  increase  of 
population,  the  vast  addition  to  the  world's  wealth  from 
the  development  of  the  resources  of  North  America 
would  have  been  impossible,  by  which  we  have  pro- 
fited as  well  as  the  people  of  America,  inasmuch  as 
it    has    delivered    us     from     exclusive    dependence 


ON   SOME   REMEDIES   FOR   LOW  WAGES,   ETC.     34T 

on  the  food  resources  of  a  small  country.  Neverthe- 
less it  would  seem  that  the  need  of  a  somewhat 
greater  restraint  on  numbers  may  be  necessary  in  the 
future,  from  the  very  fact  of  the  occupation  of  the  best 
lands  for  colonization. 

The  State  could  also,  as  before  said,  by  providing 
educational  facilities  to  the  children  of  the  poorer 
class,  give  them  access  to  the  grades  of  labour  above 
their  own  traditional  one,  from  which  their  poverty 
now  excludes  them.  Such  mild  dose  of  Socialism 
in  our  social  system  would  probably  not  be  relished 
by  the  skilled  labourers  whose  qualified  monopoly  of 
a  profitable  field  it  would  threaten,  nor  by  those 
who  might  be  taxed  to  pay  for  it.  Nevertheless  on 
ethical  grounds  it  seems  just,  as  on  political  grounds 
it  is  necessary,  in  face  of  the  fact  that  the  class  of 
unskilled  labourers  is  politically  equal  with  the  other 
labourers  ;  though  the  instance  is  one  that  shows  that 
the  assumed  solidarity  of  interest  of  the  whole  work- 
ing class  is  by  no  means  always  the  fact :  a  considera- 
tion of  some  importance,  inasmuch  as  it  may  impose 
an  emphatic  prohibition  on  some  social  specifics  which 
overlook  it. 

Complete  Socialism,  as  conceived  by  the  Collec- 
tivists,  even  ii  otherwise  practicable,  would  still  be  a 
doubtful  cure  for  the  low  wages  of  common  labour. 
The  amount  of  the  produce  to  be  divided  amongst 
all  would  indeed  be  increased  by  rent  and  interest,  as 
well  as  by  wages  of  management,  so  far  as  these  are 
excessive  at  present,  perhaps  by  a  still  further  levelling 
down  of  these,  as  also  by  the  conversion  of  all  idlers 
into  workers,  and  by  the  restrictions  on  the  production 


342  SOCIALISM   NEW   AMD   OLD. 

of  luxuries  requiring  much  labour  :  on  the  other  side, 
there  would  be  the  danger  of  greatly  diminished 
capital,  the  diminished  stimulus  to  invention,  and  to 
efficient  production  so  far  as  dependent  on  the  per- 
sonal interest  of  the  industrial  directors  and  of  all 
superior  labourers,  added  to  the  not  improbable  stim- 
ulus to  population  ;  so  that  the  quota  of  each,  though 
it  might  be  above  the  Ricardian  minimum,  would 
certainly  not  be  as  high  as  that  of  the  better-paid 
artisan  at  present.  The  general  level  of  wages  might 
conceivably  rise  a  little  above  the  present  scale  for 
common  labour,  by  pulling  down  the  share  of  all 
other  workers,  as  well  as  of  non- workers  ;  while  so  far 
as  Socialism  discouraged  foreign  trade,  as  it  would  be 
obliged  to  do  by  its  principles,  the  shares  of  all  would 
most  probably  fall  below  even  bare  subsistence. 

IIL 

There  remains  beneath  the  classes  at  low  wages  a 
peculiar  and  somewhat  indefinite  class,  half  labourersi 
half  idlers,  willing  or  unwilling,  whose  case  requires  a 
separate  consideration — the  class  of  casual  labourers 
who  live  by  occasional  spells  of  work,  by  doing  odd 
jobs  and  miscellaneous  services,  or  as  occasional  de- 
pendents on  other  labourers,  eked  out  sometimes  by 
out-door  relief  or  by  other  charity,  sometimes  by  the 
labour  of  \\^ife  or  children,  as  well  as  in  numerous 
other  ways  both  known  and  unknown.  This  class, 
speaking  generally,  is  both  physically  and  morally 
unfit  for  regular  and  continuous  labour  from  day  to 
day,  though  its  members  are  quite  capable  of  render- 
ing   individual   services    requiring   human  hands   or 


ON  SOME  REMEDIES   FOR   LOW  WAGES,  ETC.     343 

human  intelligence.    The  class  is  numerous,  especially  ^,  >_ 

in  the  great  cities,  and  most  of  all  in  London.  It  ^■'"^'^^'^■^^^ 
contains  both  hereditary  members,  and  many  who  havey  '<' x  v-*ti 
fallen  into  it  from  all  the  classes  above,  sometimes 
from  bad  moral  character  or  from  incapacity,  some- 
times from  mere  misfortune  and  without  imputable 
fault ;  persons  feeble  in  physique  or  mind  without 
being  proper  subjects  for  the  hospital  or  the  asylum,  as 
well  as  others  physically  strong  and  mentally  capable, 
but  who  dislike  all  regular  work  as  disagreeable.  On 
its  lower  side  the  class  is  in  contact  with,  or  shades 
down  into,  the  lowest  social  deposit,  composed  of 
criminals,  semi-criminals,  tramps,  professional  men- 
dicants, &c.  ;  and  it  and  these  last  together  constitute 
the  social  residuum. 

The  class  or  congeries  of  classes  is  on  the  whole  a 
very  shiftless  and  hopeless  onc,though  the  uppersection 
of  it,  containing  the  best  members,  can  live  without 
cut-door  relief,  there  being  a  certain  indefinite  demand 
for  their  orcasional  services,  while  such  intermittent 
jobs  and  individual  services  are  commonly  well  paid. 
The  whole  class  is  numerous,^  though  probably  rela- 
tively less  numerous  than  formerly ;  it  is  for  the  most 
part  unhappy,  especially  its  fallen  members,  and 
certainly  vk:xy  poor. 

What  to  do  with  this  large  class,  or  how  to  diminish 
its  numbers,  has  long  been  a  perplexity  to  statesmen 
and  a  problem  for  social  philosophers  and  reformers. 
Whippings,  brandings,  imprisonment,  and  executions 
have  been  tried  to  reduce  it.     Poor  Laws  were  framed 

>  See  Booth's  "  Life  nn  \  Labour  of  the  People  "  for  inlnresting 
facts  and  figures  touching  these  classes. 


344  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

first  because  of  it,  and  sanguinary  criminal  laws  have 
been  passed  to  repress  it.  Ideal  commonwealths  have 
been  devised  expressly  to  do  away  with  its  most  con- 
spicuous types.  The  class  is  still  with  us ;  it  would 
almost  seem  an  incompressible  quantity. 

Nevertheless  it  has  been  somewhat  reduced,  and  it 
may  be  reduced  somewhat  more  by  philanthropic  effort 
and  by  organized  charity,  as  well  as  by  the  State 
looking  after  the  children  and  giving  them  chances  of 
escaping  from  their  inherited  status.  Both  on  grounds 
of  humanity,  and  for  the  health  of  society  as  a  whole, 
something  should  be  attempted  in  their  behalf  by 
the  State,  especially  through  the  local  authorities. 
And  yet  it  will  be  found  a  most  difficult  and  per- 
plexing problem  to  reduce  considerably  this  lowest 
class,  and  impossible  to  get  rid  of  it  wholly,  since  it 
is  demonstrable  that  there  must  absolutely  be  in  an 
individualistic  society  a  certain  number  always  falling 
into  the  lowest  social  regions,  as  it  is  for  the  general 
weal  that  some  should  fall  and  suffer;  the  disigreeable- 
ness  of  their  condition  being  the  natural  punishment 
of  their  fault  or  folly,  though  sometimes  the  conse- 
quence of  their  incapacity.  If  criminals,  in  or  out  of 
prison,  were  all  comfortable,  if  foolish  people  were  all 
saved  from  the  foreseen  consequences  of  their  folly, 
if  loafers  and  idlers  were  all  happy,  there  would  soon 
be  a  great  increase  of  fools,  rogues,  idlers,  and 
criminals.  These  must  be  left  to  suffer,  but  within  a 
measure.  The  thing  to  be  deplored  under  the  present 
state  of  things  is  rather  that  there  are  some  men, 
women,  and  especially  children,  who  are  the  victims 
ui  misfortune  and  fate,  nay,  some  who  are  occasionally 


ON   SOME   REMEDIES   FOR    LOW   WAGES,   ETC.     345 

suffering  from  their  virtues.  These  last  are  cases  that 
might  be  discovered  by  judicious  philanthropic  effort, 
and  the  individuals  might  be  assisted  to  recover  them- 
selves ;  while  the  children  of  all,  even  of  the  bad, 
might  in  part  be  rescued  from  the  fate  their  parents' 
faults  or  follies  or  vices  would  probably  otherwise 
have  entailed  on  them  and  their  posterity  to  the  third 
and  fourth  generation.  And  to  do  this  last  would  be 
the  work  chiefly  of  the  State. 

Socialism,  as  we  have  seen,  would  be  a  doubtful 
cure  for  low  wages.  Neither,  if  it  were  established, 
could  it  cure  the  mass  of  social  drift  and  wreck,  some 
of  it  necessary  for  the  general  weal  as  an  example  by 
way  of  punishment,  more  of  it  made  by  our  too 
individualistic  and  chance  system.  If  Socialism  were 
established,  unless  these  classes  were  dealt  with 
severely,  were  turned  into  slaves  or  close  prisoners, 
they  would  make  very  intractable  citizens  in  the 
Collectivist  commonwealth.  "But  we  should  know 
how  to  deal  with  them,"  the  Socialist  .<-ays.  "  More- 
over, they  would  only  be  on  our  hands  at  most  for 
one  generation,  or  until  the  grown  generation  had 
gradually  dropped  off,  afterwards  there  would  be  no 
more  of  them."  Unless,  however.  Socialism  went  about 
the  matter  of  suppression  in  very  fundamental  fashion, 
by  preventing  the  reproduction  of  "such  evil  social 
types,  which  would  necessitate  in  general  the  State 
control  of  and  the  arrangement  of  marriages,  similar 
types  would  be  born  which  no  education  could  make 
into  good  citizens.  The  piisons  under  Socialism  would 
be  much  fuller  than  at  present,  while  the  slave-gang, 
with  the  whip  or  prison  in  reserve,  would  have  to  be 


346  SOCIALISM   NEW  AK  D   OLD. 

substituted  for  the  present  natural  punishment  of  the 
class  that  will  not  work,  or  the  dismissed  bad  cha- 
racters that  none  will  employ.  One  thing  is  certain  : 
the  whole  class  would  prefer  the  present  system,  with 
all  its  evils,  to  Socialism  ;  for  in  general  its  members 
much  like  liberty,  and  do  not  much  like  work.  They 
like  their  present  freedom,  which  they  have  bought  at 
so  great  a  price.  If  the  Socialist  scheme  were  candidly 
explained  to  them,  they  would  instinctively  see  it 
would  not  suit  them  ;  and  though  in  revolutionary 
times  many  of  them  will  attack  society  from  in- 
stincts of  destruction,  or  envy,  or  revenge,  there  is 
nothing  they  would  like  so  little  as  a  new  construc- 
tion on  strictly  Collectivist  principles ;  and  if  they 
found  themselves  hemmed  in  in  such  a  regime,  they 
would  be  the  first  to  revolt  against  it.  They  would, 
indeed,  make  much  better  Anarchists  than  Socialists, 
though  for  a  continuance  they  would  prefer  to  live 
under  the  existing  regime  which  does  not  oppress 
them,  which  leaves  them  their  liberty  and  chances, 
and  which  is  so  far  Socialistic  that  it  promises  them 
the  necessaries  of  life  in  case  of  extremity. 

IV. 

Such,  then,  are  the  conclusions  to  which  we  are  led, 
and  such  the  limits  within  which  improvements  and 
reforms  seem  possible.  There  are,  however,  at  pre- 
sent before  the  public  certain  special  proposals  for 
raising  wages,  for  giving  work  to  the  unemployed, 
and  generally  for  elevating  the  condition  of  the 
labouring  class,  more  or  less  new,  and  more  or  less 
socialistic,  notably  one  for  tne  reduction  by  law  of 


ON   SOME   REMEDIES   FOR   LOW   WAGES,   ETC.      34/ 

the  hours  of  labour  to  eight  hours  a  day,  which  it 
may  be  desirable  to  consider  in  order  to  mark 
more  definitely  the  limits  of  the  possible,  as  well  as  to 
shew  more  clearly  the  position  taken  up  in  this  book 
on  social  reform.  The  first  is  a  plan  submitted  by  the 
Rev.  H.  Mills,  in  a  volume  entitled  *'  Poverty  and 
the  State,"  a  plan  which  he  thinks  would  completely 
solve  the  question  of  the  unemployed  ;  a  plan  which 
would  provide  self-supporting  and  not  disagreeable 
work  for  all  unemployed  labourers,  and,  indeed,  for 
other  possible  applicants  who  might  like  to  try  it ; 
which  would  combine  the  advantages  of  co-operative 
labour  without  being  in  competition  with  industries 
under  private  enterprise  ;  and  all  this  without  costing 
more  to  the  community  than  a  certain  amount  deemed 
requisite  to  start  and  launch  the  scheme,  which  is 
estimated  at  double  that  spent  for  one  year  on  poor 
re  ief.  To  do  all  this  so  simply  would  indeed  be 
a  great  social  miracle,  and  we  might  well  believe  with 
Mr.  Mills  that  it  would  be  followed  by  something  like 
the  millennium.  The  question  is  how  far  it  is  really 
possible,  and  in  order  to  judge  of  this,  it  is  neces.sary 
and  it  may  be  useful  to  consider  the  scheme  briefly 
in  detail. 

The  scheme  starts  from  our  existing  system  of 
poor  relief,  which  it  proposes  to  reform  and  extend, 
though  afterwards,  as  much  as  possible  to  make  us 
forget  their  origin,  Mr.  Mills  proposes  to  give  the 
name  of  "Co-operative  Instates"  to  his  refuges  for 
the  unemployed.  To  go  a  little  into  details:  hi.; 
idea  is  that  each  of  the  Poor  Law  Unions  should  be 
empowered   by  Parliament  "to  collect  a  sum  equal  to 


348  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

the  present  expenditure  on  account  of  the  poor  for  two 
years,"  with  which  to  purchase  tracts  of  land  of  about 
2000  acres,  which  he  thinks  could  be  made  to  sup- 
port double  that  number  of  persons,  if  duly  stocked 
with  cows,  pigs,  poultry,  as  well  as  with  inexpensive 
machinery  and  plant.  All  kinds  of  unemployed 
labourers  would  be  free  to  come  to  the  communities  or 
co-operative  estates,  and  it  would  also  appear  that 
idlers,  mendicants,  and  the  recipients  of  out-door  reljef 
are  to  be  driven  to  them.  They  would  there  raise  their 
own  food,  make  their  own  clothes,  and  with  the  surplus 
over  their  own  wants  in  food,  they  could  purchase 
necessaries  such  as  coal  that  they  could  not  raise  them- 
selves, and  some  things  of  foreign  growth,  such  as  tea 
and  sugar.  They  are  all  to  work  on  the  co-operative 
system  ;  or  rather  there  is  to  be  a  certain  amount  of 
communism,  but  without  equality  of  distribution. 
They  are  to  work  together,  to  take  their  meals  to- 
gether and  at  fixed  hours.  There  is  to  be  no  competi- 
tion with  the  outside  English  world  in  respect  of  any 
of  their  productions;  but  commodities  that  are  now 
imported  from  abroad,  such  as  wheat,  butter,  poultry, 
eggs,  might  be  permitted  to  be  sold,  because  Mr. 
Mills  thinks  there  would  be  no  harm  in  competing 
with  the  foreigners  who  send  us  these  commodities. 
Moreover,  he  adds,  contemplating  the  situation  from 
the  interned  co-operators'  stand-point,  "  If  we  did  not 
sell  something  of  our  produce,  we  should  not  be  able 
to  purchase  articles  of  foreign  growth,"  such  as  "  tea, 
coffee,  petroleum,  and  oranges." 

Such  is  the  general  idea,  which  is  something  like  a 
plan  of  workhouse  reform  proposed  by  Robert  Owen 


ON   SOME  REMEDIES  FOR   LOW   WAGES,  ETC.     349 

to  the  Government  in  1817,  ^^^  which  also  bears  a  rude 
resemblance  to  Fourier's  scheme.  The  first  thing  to 
be  observed  with  respect  to  it  is,  that  it  would  cost  a 
good  deal  to  the  ratepayers  :  to  buy  and  stock  the 
2000  acres,  &c.,  would  cost,  on  the  author's  calculation, 
close  on  100,000/.  ;  every  Poor  Law  Union  would 
require  as  much,  and  there  are  many  of  them.  But 
then,  we  are  assured,  the  scheme  would  be  self- 
supporting  ever  after,  and  the  honest  working-man 
out  of  employment — the  figure  that,  according  to  Mr. 
Morley,  is  more  tragic  than  any  Hamlet — would  no 
longer  sadden  the  sight  of  the  philanthropist  or  trouble 
the  thoughts  of  the  politician  and  social  philosopher. 
But  could  the  scheme  be  made  self-supporting  ?  I 
doubt  it  greatly.  I  think  it  very  probable  that,  in 
addition  to  the  first  outlay,  there  would  be  a  yearly 
deficit,  and  thus  the  working  man  out  of  employment 
would  not  have  the  satisfaction  of  feeling  that  he  was 
supporting  himself.  I  grant  that  a  proper  assortment 
of  labourers  could  probably  produce  their  own  food,  if 
there  were  many  agricultural  labourers  amongst  them, 
with  their  wives  to  look  after  the  butter,  poultry,  &c., 
some  bakers,  also  a  miller  and  a  mill ;  they  might 
produce  coarse  clothes  if  they  raised  their  own  flax 
and  produced  their  own  wool,  and  if  further  they  had 
the  necessary  machinery  and  plant,  the  spinners  and 
weavers,  also  tailors,  seamstresses,  and  shoemakers. 
They  could  not  produce  their  own  coal,  gas  or  light,  tea 
or  sugar,  and  they  would  have  to  be  permitted  to  sell 
their  surplus  agricultural  productions  in  order  to  get 
these  things,  though  to  the  extent  that  they  did  sell 
such  products  they  would  be  in  competition  with  the 
18 


3 so  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

unaided  English  producers  of  the  same,  as  well  as 
with  foreigners.     If  the  co-operators  sold  their  wheat 
cheaper  than  the  Americans,  they  would  be  virtually 
in  competition  with  English  farmers,  and  they  could 
afford  to  sell  at  almost  any  degree  of  cheapness  in 
order  to  get  the  coveted  necessaries  or  luxuries.     We 
will,  however,  suppose  this  objection  got  over  or  mini- 
mized.    Supposing  that  the  unemployed  came,  there 
would  probably  be  many  kinds  of  labourers  who  could 
not  be  set  to  work  at  their  own  occupation.     Masons 
and  bricklayers  would  have  nothing  to  do,  as  the 
common  building  (not  to  be  called  workhouse)   has 
been  already  built ;  the  carpenter  out  of  work,  the 
shipwright,  the  glazier,  the  plumber  would  have  little 
to  do,  still  less  the  printer,  the  cabman,  the  clerk,  the 
cabinet-maker,  the   miner,  the  sailor,  and  a  hundred 
more.     They  would  all  have  to  turn  to  the   dozen 
or  so  of  industries  requisite  to  obtain  the  plain  food 
or  rude  clothes  and  furniture  required  by  themselves. 
They  would  not  be   allowed   to  make  furniture,  ex- 
cept for  their  own  use,  as  they  could  not  sell  it  ;  the 
furniture  trade  outside  objecting  to  a  competition  with 
their  work  made  possible  by  the  public  taxes.     They 
could  only  make  chairs,  tables,  benches,  wooden  bed- 
steads, and  there  might  soon   be  "  over-production." 
Most  of  them  would,  therefore,  have  to  learn  some  kind 
of  agricultural  work,  which  would  be  the  most  profit- 
able, if  they  were  permitted  to  sell  indefinitely.    Spin- 
ning and  weaving  would  only  be  possible  in  a  factory 
with  machinery,  and  these  would  be  rather  expensive. 
Tailors  and   shoemakers   would  indeed   also   be  re- 
quired;    with    respect    to    all    other    craftsmen    or 


ON   SOxME   REMEDIES   FOR   LOW   WAGES,    ETC      35 1 

labourers  there  would  be  no  demand  on  the  "  estates  " 
for  their  special  work. 

Then  the  agricultural  labourers  on  the  estates  would 
not  be  the  best  of  their  kind.  The  best,  if  no  longer 
needed  in  the  country,  get  quickly  employed  in 
London  and  the  great  towns,^  leaving  few,  or  only 
inferior  ones,  to  go  on  the  "  estates  ;"  so  that  of  those 
used  to  the  work  there  would  only  be  bad  ploughers 
and  diggers,  reapers  and  threshers,  while  other 
workers,  such  as  artisans  and  operatives  out  of  work, 
could  not  be  transformed  quickly  into  such  agricultural 
labourers.  Besides,  these  men  would  not  remain  long 
(by  hypothesis).  They  would  only  be  there  while 
their  own  trade  was  depressed,  and  they  would  hardly 
have  time  to  learn  properly  any  branch  of  agriculture 
before  they  would  want  to  leave  ;  while  at  the  best  they 
would  not  be  the  best  class  of  workmen,  or  (as  a  rule) 
they  would  not  be  unemployed.  There  would  be  a 
constant  efflux  as  well  as  influx  of  different  sorts  of 
inferior  unemployed  labourers,  amongst  which  would 
be  found  very  few  genuine  agricultural  labourers.  But 
that  would  not  be  the  worst. 

Besides  unemployed  labourers  properly  so  called 
who  would  not  make  good  agricultural  labourers, 
there  would  be  on^thc  estates  a  much  more  hopeless 
class,  if,  on  our  author's  suggestion,  all  vagrants  and 
mendicants  were  to  be  driven  in  (as  in  the  Beggar 
Colonies  of  the  Ncthcrland.s),  and  if  all  out-door  relief 
were  refused.  If  this  course  were  really  adopted,  f 
think  the.se  last,— the  mendicants  and  the  former  out- 

*  See  Booth's  "  Life  and  Labour  of  the  People "   (of  East 
London). 


352  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

door  paupers, — vvoulJ  soon  have  the  estates  nearly  all 
to  themselves,  in  which  case,  unless  the  discipline 
was  rather  severe,  unless  there  were,  as  in  Mr.  Car- 
lyle's  similar  scheme,  "  workmasters  and  taskmasters, 
life-commanders,  equitable  as  Rhadamanthus  and 
inflexible  as  he,"  I  fear  the  experiment  would  be  far 
from  self-supporting.  We  should  have  "  reformed  " 
our  Poor  Laws,  I  hardly  think  for  the  better ;  we 
should  not  have  solved  the  problem  proposed,  the 
problem  of  the  unemployed. 

To  take  the  scheme  in  its  most  promising  form, 
then,  we  must  suppose  the  beggars  and  former  semi- 
paupers  absent,  and  either  living  as  they  do  now,  or 
planted  on  different  "  estates  ;"  because  the  better 
part  of  the  unemployed  would  not  consent  to  asso- 
ciate with  them  in  the  intimate  and  equal  terms  re- 
quired by  the  scheme.  We  must  also  suppose  another 
thing  not  provided  for  in  the  scheme,  namely,  that 
many  and  good  agricultural  labourers  are  on  the  estate 
who  will  not,  as  a  rule,  be  there  unless  special  induce- 
ments are  offered  them,  such  as  higher  wages  than  they 
can  expect  in  the  towns,  or  equivalent  advantages  ; 
we  must  also  suppose  the  miscellaneous  other 
labourers  to  take  kindly  to  their  work,  to  labour 
diligently  and  docilely  as  directed,  and  not  to  throw 
it  up  on  too  short  notice  ;  that  is,  we  must  suppose 
the  plan  considerably  other  than  it  is  presented  to 
us  ;  while,  even  so  conceived,  it  is  doubtful,  whether 
after  paying  the  necessary  officials  and  the  genuine 
agricultural  labourers  their  proper  and  larger  share, 
the  remaining  produce  would  afford  bare  sub- 
sistence to  such  unemployed  labourers  as  would  be 


ON   SOME   REMEDIES   FOR   LOW   WAGES,   ETC.     353 

there,  while  if  competition  with  outside  agricultural 
industry  w^ere  forbidden  or  greatly  restricted,  as  would 
be  necessary  for  reasons  already  given,  so  much  even 
would  not  be  possible,  so  that  the  self-respecting  un- 
employed would  not  feel  independent  of  public  help. 
On  the  whole,  then,  taking  the  scheme  at  its  best,  it 
would  be  a  costly  experiment  for  a  very  doubtful 
result ;  while  taking  it  as  actually  stated,  it  would  be 
unworkable. 

As  we  have  before  noted,  the  slack  time  that  can  be 
fore-known  should  be  paid  for  by  higher  wages  when 
employed,  which  it  should  be  the  labourers'  aim  to  se- 
cure by  combination,  leaving  them  at  leisure,  if  they 
choose,  during  the  slack  time  ;  while  in  many  cases 
allotments  would  be  useful  adjuncts  :  but  exceptional 
cases,  where  there  is  a  wholly  unforeseen  depression  of 
trade  and  diminution  of  employment,  would  seem  best 
dealt  with  by  special  relief  and  public  works. 

V. 

TflERE  is  also  a  rather  remarkable,  if  not  quite  new, 
remedy  for  poverty  and  the  distressed  condition  of 
the  unemployed '  suggested  by  Mr.  Charles  Booth  in 
a  volume  edited  by  him,  and  otherwise  valuable  for 
its  figures  and  facts,  entitled  "  Labour  and  Life  of  the 
People,"  vol.  i.  (referring  to  East  London).     In  order 

•  It  is  substantially  the  same  as  the  proposal  of  Carlyle  in 
his  well-known  "Speech  of  the  British  Premier"  to  the  as- 
sembled paupers  and  lackalls  in  the  "Latter  Day  I'.iniplilets," 
and  much  like  the  proposal  of  Fletcher  of  Saltoun,  in  1698,  to 
the  Scottish  Parliament,  to  restore  serfdom  because  of  the 
great  increase  in  the  number  of  beggars. 


354  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

to  understand  his  proposal,  it  is  necessary  to  give  Mr. 
Booth's  classification  of  labourers  and  of  social  grades 
in  the  districts  to  which  his  facts  relate.  They  are  as 
follows  : — Class  A,  the  lowest  class  of  "  occasional 
labourers,  loafers,  criminals,  and  semi-criminals  ;"  not 
numerous,  put  at  i ^  per  cent. ;  Class  B,  those  who 
live  by  casual  earnings,  and  who  are  in  a  state  of 
chronic  want,  described  as  "  the  very  poor,"  and 
amounting  to  iij  per  cent.  ;  Class  C,  which  lives  on 
"  intermittent  earnings  ;  "  and  Class  D,  on  "  small  (or 
minimum)  regular  earnings;"  classed  together  as  "the 
poor ;"  the  four  classes  together  amounting  to  over 
300,000  out  of  a  total  of  900,000.  Then  we  come  to 
the  more  hopeful  grades  :  Class  E,  at  regular  standard 
earnings,  above  the  line  of  poverty, — 42  per  cent. ; 
Class  F,  the  better-paid  artisans,  foremen,  and  small 
employers, — 14  per  cent. ;  Class  G,  the  lower  middle 
class,  of  shopkeepers,  small  employers,  clerks,  &c. ;  and 
Class  H,  the  upper  middle  class  ;  the  last  two  together 
forming  about  9  per  cent. 

Now  Mr.  Booth's  plan  in  brief  is,  to  "  harry  Class  A 
out  of  existence  "  (by  the  united  efforts  of  the  police 
and  the  magistrates)  ;  to  carry  Class  B  into  captivity, 
and  "to  plant  its  mem.bers  in  industrial  groups  where 
land  and  building  materials  were  cheap,"  where  they 
should  be  required  to  work  regularly  and  long  under 
strict  rules,  where  they  should  be  employed,  after 
being  duly  taught  and  trained,  in  building  their 
own  dwellings  (a  slight  improvement  on  Mr.  Mills' 
scheme),  in  cultivation  of  the  land,  in  making  clothes, 
or  in  making  furniture  ;  there  being,  as  in  the  previous 
scheme,  "  no  competition  with  the  outside  world." 


ON   SOME   REMEDIES    FOR   LOW   WAGES,   ETC.     355 

Thus,  by  making  a  sacrifice  of  the  lowest  class,  the 
classes  just  above,  and  all  the  rest  of  the  labouring 
classes  could  live  and  thrive,  and  could  aim  at  ele- 
vating their  social  and  economic  condition ;  by  making 
a  scape-goat  of  a  class,  society  could  breathe  freely. 
Class  C  would  get  more  work;  Class  D  would  get 
more  pay ;  and  Class  E,  the  large  ambitious  class 
that  has  no  fear  of  falling,  that  is  chiefly  concerning 
itself  about  rising,  might  go  on  trying  to  make  the 
best  terms  it  could  with  employers  or  otherwise  to 
better  its  condition.  By  a  slight  infusion  of  Socialism, 
all  the  rest  of  society  could  live  on  the  better  and 
more  bracing  principle  of  a  hardy  individualism.  At 
present  "our  individualism  fails  because  our  Socialism 
is  incomplete."  In  taking  charge  of  the  lives  of  the 
incapable.  State  Socialism  finds  its  proper  work,  and 
by  doing  so  completely  it  would  relieve  us  of  a  serious 
danger  (p.  167). 

And  now  how  are  we  to  get  the  lowest  class  of  casual 
labourers  into  these  industrial  plantations  ?  There 
is  to  be  no  compulsion,  Mr.  Booth  says.  "  The  only 
form  compulsion  could  assume  would  be  that  of 
making  life  otherwise  impossible  ;  an  enforcement  of 
the  standard  of  life  which  would  oblige  every  one  of 
us  to  accept  the  relief  of  the  State  in  the  manner 
prescribed  by  the  State,  unless  we  were  able  and 
willing  to  conform  to  the  standard."  That  is,  there 
is  to  be  no  compulsion  nominally,  but  the  enforcement 
of  a  higher  standard  would  be  practical  compulsion, 
and,  moreover,  compulsion  affecting  some  of  the 
classes  (C  and  D)  just  above  the  casual  class  who  arc 
Mr.  Booth's  special  clients. 


356  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

And  most  certainly  without  compulsion  very  few 
of  the  social  types  that  Mr.  Booth  wants  set  apart 
and  secluded  will  apply  for  voluntary  admission. 
The  class  whose  absence  in  the  general  individualist 
system  is  desired  by  Mr.  Booth  manages  to  live  at 
present  somehow ;  and,  indeed,  Mr.  Booth's  book 
throws  some  new  and  very  interesting  light  upon 
the  matter,  but  nothing  to  qualify  our  conclusion  that 
few  of  them,  if  they  could  at  all  avoid  it,  would  offer  for 
voluntary  service  in  the  industrial  colonies,  much  dis- 
liking, as  Mr.  Booth  notes,  all  continuous  labour, 
while  such,  both  regular  and  rigorous,  would  be 
exacted  under  State  direction.  Some  might  try  it, 
he  thinks,  if  all  other  resources  were  stopped,  but  they 
would  not  long  remain  ;  they  would  prefer,  as  he  says, 
their  "crust  and  liberty,"  with  all  the  chances  and 
excitements  of  their  present  life,  to  the  monotonous 
life  and  severe  labour  of  the  plantations. 

As  things  are,  then,  they  would  not  offer  to  go 
voluntarily,  but  the  persistent  mendicant,  the  mendi- 
cant tramp,  and  perhaps  the  man  with  no  visible 
means  of  livelihood,  might  be  sent  by  the  magistrate  ; 
still  more,  out-door  relief  under  the  Poor  Law,  and 
all  organized  public  charity,  might  be  denied  to  the 
able-bodied  adult,  and  a  considerable  number  of 
recruits  might  thus  be  obtained.  Some  would  prefer 
it  to  the  workhouse,  the  only  remaining  alternative. 
The  better  class  of  distressed  men  would  prefer  it ; 
the  worse  would  elect  the  workhouse  because  it  is  not 
a  workplace,  unless  it  too  closed  its  doors  on  the 
able-bodied. 

There  are  other  effects  that   would  probably  in 


ON  SOME   REMEDIES   FOR   LOW   WAGES,   ETC.     357 

some  measure  follow  the  stopping  of  out-door  relief 
and  organized  public  charity  generally.  Some  of 
the  casual  labourers  would  exert  themselves  more  ; 
those  who  laboured  three  days  a  week  (the  average, 
according  to  Mr.  Booth)  would  exert  themselves  to 
obtain  four ;  that  is,  the  competition  would  be  in- 
creased for  the  sum  of  casual  jobs.  There  would  be 
a  more  embittered  scramble  with  the  class  of  inter- 
mittent labourers,  or  casual  labourers  would  intensify 
some  of  their  present  questionable  methods  of  adding 
to  their  earnings,  would  put  the  strain  on  their  wives 
and  children  to  work  harder  or  get  more  money  how 
they  could  ;  some  of  them  would  be  driven  for  certain 
into  the  criminal  classes,  into  which  their  own  class 
shades  down  in  its  lower  sections,  so  that  Class  A, 
which  Mr.  Booth  thinks  might  be  "harried  out  of 
existence,"  would  probably  be  increased,  and  not  only 
crime,  but  immorality,  would  probably  be  greatly  in- 
creased by  the  endeavour,  however  well  meant,  "  to 
induce  or  drive  Class  B  to  accept  a  regulated  life." 
Some  of  its  members  would  have  found  refuge  in  the 
workhouse,  some  would  be  in  the  prison;  a  great 
many  would  maintain  their  old  way  of  life  by  keener 
competition,  perhaps  by  new  and  original  methods  of 
begf^ing  in  evasion  of  the  law  against  beggars,  and  in 
still  more  questionable  ways ;  but  so  long  as  the 
springs  of  private  charity  were  not  stopped,  as  they 
would  not  be,  our  martyr  class  would  not  be  all  driven 
away,but  onlya. small  number  of  them, to  the  industrial 
villages.  The  convicted  beggar  and  vagrant  would  be 
there,  some  honest  unemployed  workers  of  the  class 
above,   and  a  few   of  Class    B  ;    unless,   indeed    the 


358  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

authorities  forced  the  able-bodied  ones  now  in  the 
workhouse  on  the  plantations  ;  that  is,  unless  the 
workhouse  as  an  alternative  for  the  able-bodied  adult 
were  also  taken  away. 

But  it  is  urged  that  this  class  of  casual  labourers 
pulls  down  a  better  class  of  men  ;  that  if  it  was  gone, 
one  class  (C)  would  have  more  work,  another  (D) 
more  pay,  and  that  they  cannot  rise  so  long  as 
this  class  beneath  is  dragging  them  down  by  its 
competition.  But  to  this  the  casual  labourer  might 
retort  with  effect,  "  No  doubt  if  we  were  all  gone, 
the  unemployed  would  be  better  off,  as  they  would 
get  paid  for  doing  our  work  ;  but  so  would  we  be 
better  off  if  they  were  gone  or  employed.  It  is 
they  who  are  dragging  us  down,  if  the  thing  were 
rightly  put,  because  they  are  competing  with  us  for 
our  immemorial  jobs,  for  the  jobs  and  spells  of  work 
always  done  by  our  class.  We  were  here  first.  We 
have  prescriptive  right,  the  right  of  first  occupation 
of  the  field.  But  we,  it  seems,  are  to  be  driven  off  for 
their  benefit,  that  the  class  of  men  out  of  regular  work 
shall  get  our  work  to  do  in  their  unemployed  and  leisure 
time,  and  that  another  class  may  get  higher  wages, 
though  we  are  hardly  in  competition  with  the  second 
class  at  all.  It  is  we  who  are  too  many,  it  seems  to 
some  philosophers.  Thank  them  very  much.  But 
we  have  as  good  a  right  to  our  place  as  any  other 
class,  and  if  we  are  sometimes  in  want,  it  is  partly 
owing  to  the  competition  of  men  who  should  not  be 
in  competition  with  us,  but  who  come  to  take  the 
bit  out  of  our  mouths.  There  is  a  certain  amount  of 
our  kind  of  work  always  to  be  done  ;  it  suits  us ;  as  a 


ON   SOME   REMEDIES   FOR   LOW   WAGES,   ETC.     359 

rule  it  isn't  hard  work,  but  then  it  isn't  well  paid,  and 
it's  not  very  dignified,  which  last  we  don't  mind  ;  but 
the  work  should  be  done  by  us,  not  by  the  idle  men 
of  other  trades.  We  should  be  protected  from  their 
competition  if  there  were  any  rights.  These  jobs 
and  chances  form  the  hereditary  property  of  our 
class,  the  only  thing  we  did  inherit.  We  have  the 
good-will  of  them,  and  we  can't  be  expropriated 
more  than  any  other  class  save  by  force  and  in- 
justice. No  doubt  some  of  us  are  unfortunate  at 
times,  still  we  rub  along  somehow  and  don't  com- 
plain much,  and  if  we  now  and  then  come  on  the  rates, 
why  so  do  our  betters.  And  if  you  want  to  benefit 
the  unemployed  (from  bad  trade),  let  the  authorities 
find  work  for  them,  while  if  unemployed  intermittent 
labourers  or  ill-paid  labourers  are  to  be  benefited,  let 
it  be  at  the  cost  of  their  employers  that  profit  from 
their  work,  or  the  public,  and  not  at  our  cost.  For  our- 
selves, all  we  further  ask  is  that  you  leave  us  alone." 
Thus  may  urge  the  casual  labourer.  It  would,  in 
fact,  be  unjust  to  either  force  or  drive  them  away;  more- 
over it  would  be  impolitic,  as  before  said,  and  largely 
impracticable.  But  even  if  they  were  all  bodily  re- 
moved and  made  State  slaves,  as  Mr.  Booth  suggests 
and  as  Carlyle  recommended,  the  State  would  have  a 
serious  task  on  hand,  because  on  Mr.  Booth's  calcula- 
tions the  class  in  question  is  very  numerous.  In  tiie 
district  covered  by  his  figures  (East  London  and 
Hackney)  it  amounted  to  ii^  per  cent.,  and  if  we 
assume  the  same  proportion  all  ever  the  three  king- 
doms, out  of  a  population  of  near  forty  millions  there 
would  be  over  four  millions  to  be  relegated  to  the  in- 


360  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD, 

dustrial  communities  ;  or  say  the  proportion  was  less 
in  other  parts  of  London  and  generally  over  the  king- 
dom, let  us  put  them  at  three  millions.  This  would  be 
a  very  large  body  to  be  dealt  with,  in  addition  to  our  in- 
door paupers.  We  need  not  insist  on  the  very  un- 
promising materials  they  would  be  for  labourers.  They 
would  mostly  be  men  who  had  never  learned  any  regu- 
lar calling,  but  who  might  be  able  to  do  many  miscel- 
laneous things.  They  would  not  like  regular  work 
from  the  habit  of  their  lives  ;  they  would  mostly  be 
incapable  of  it,  from  want  of  physical  strength 
or  endurance.  They  could  only  be  kept  to  it  by 
punishment,  which  in  their  case  would  be  cruelty ; 
and  even  then  the  work  would  be  bad,  and  small  in 
amount.  So  much  indeed  Mr,  Booth  admits  ;  that  the 
work  would  be  bad,  and  probably  far  from  self-sup- 
porting. He  adds,  however,  that  even  now  their  work 
is  costly  to  society,  forgetting  that  when  they  are 
removed  it  must  still  be  paid  for  to  the  class  that  takes 
their  place,  so  that  society  would  still  have  to  pay 
for  it,  as  well  as  for  the  deficiency  on  the  work  in  the 
semi-penal  colonies.  Society  would,  in  addition  to  the 
inmates  of  the  workhouse,  have  three  or  four  millions 
of  slaves  on  hand,  sent  into  captivity  for  the  benefit 
of  the  classes  of  ill-paid  labourers  just  above  them, 
and  unjustly  expropriated  from  their  hereditary 
chances  because  they  were  somewhat  more  unfortunate 
than  these  classes. 

There  is  little  doubt  that  their  absence  would  raise 
for  a  time  at  least — and  if  population  was  not  unduly 
stimulated,  would  raise  permanently, — the  condition  of 
the  struggling  classes  just  above  the  displaced  casual 


ON   SOME   REMEDIES   FOR  LOW  WAGES,  ETC.      36I 

class.  Profits  and  interest  would  indeed  be  reduced, 
so  far  as  wages  were  raised,  unless  inventions  were 
made  or  the  work  done  was  better  or  greater  in 
amount,  and  the  elevation  of  wages  would  to  some 
extent  contract  the  field  of  investment  which  the 
former  cheaper  labour  made  possible,  so  that  a  fresh 
fringe  or  margin  of  unemployed  labour  would  be 
another  consequence  of  the  raised  wages.  The  new 
unemployed  would  not  be  so  numerous,  indeed,  as  the 
relegated  class,  but  some  there  would  be,  the  disen- 
gaged capital  probably  going  abroad  for  invcr.tmer.t. 
On  the  whole,  the  rest  of  society  would  probably  be 
the  healthier  for  the  absence  of  the  class  ;  the  question 
is,  are  we  willing  and  ready  to  benefit  the  better  class 
of  labourers  at  the  cost  of  the  lower  and  more  unfor- 
tunate, at  the  risk,  also,  of  increasing  crime  and 
immorality  ?  I  doubt  very  much  whether  opinion 
would  be  in  favour  of  it,  especially  as  the  sacrifice  of 
the  lower  class  would  entail  a  certain  sacrifice  to  the 
classes  receiving  profit  and  interest.  I  think  it  would 
be  opposed  as  tyrannical  and  unjust,  that  opinion 
would  set  itself  against  it,  and  that  a  rigorous  attempt 
to  stop  out-door  relief  would  be  defeated  by  voluntary 
charity.  I  am  afraid,  therefore,  that  this  plan  for  the 
benefit  of  the  unemployed  must  also  be  ticketed  with 
the  fatal  word  "  impracticable,"  though  if  society 
generally  insisted  on  it,  it  would  really  benefit  the 
existing  unemployed,  as  well  as  the  low-paid  labourers. 
It  is  not,  therefore,  absolutely  impracticable  ;  it  is 
only  relatively  so,  and  for  the  reason  that  it  is  most 
unlikely  that  opinion  will  be  in  favour  of  it,  at  Icar.t 
tor  a  long  time  to  come. 


362  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND  OLD. 


CHAPTER   XI. 

AN   EIGHT   hours'   WORKING   DAY. 
I. 

A  FAVOURITE  plan  at  the  present  time  for  absorbing 
unemployed  labour,  as  well  as  for  improving  the 
general  condition  of  all  labourers,  is  to  make  eight 
hours  the  legal  working  day,  overtime  to  be  paid 
extra,  and  at  higher  rates.  This  proposal  has  found 
more  general  support  than  any  other,  both  amongst 
labourers  and  social  philosophers ;  it  is  therefore 
deserving  of  a  careful  consideration. 

The  view  held  by  its  supporters  is,  that  the  reduc- 
tion in  time  of  work  would  result  in  an  equivalent 
reduction  in  the  amount  of  products  and  services, 
while  society,  requiring  the  same  total  of  both  as 
before,  would  be  obliged  to  draw  on  the  unemployed 
labour  to  supply  the  deficiency.  Those  employed 
would  thus  have  more  leisure,  with  wages  un- 
diminished ;  they  might  still  add  to  their  wages  by 
overtime,  while  there  would  be  {ew  or  none  out  of 
work. 

Such,  in  brief,  is  the  theory.  Or  in  figures  :  (he 
working  time  being  reduced  from  ten  hours  (which  is 
about  the  present  average  day's  work)  to  eight  hours, 
the  resulting  quantity  of  products  and  services  will  be 


AN   EIGHT   hours'  WORKING  DAY.  363 

reduced  in  the  same  proportion,  that  is,  to  four-fifths, 
leaving  one-fifth  unsupplied,  which  the  unemployed 
can  furnish.  It  is  assumed  in  the  argument  that  the 
quantity  of  work  required,  the  amount  of  commodities 
(the  necessaries,  conveniences,  and  luxuries),  including 
the  amount  of  services,  is  a  constant  amount,  though 
such  is  by  no  means  the  case,  as  Professor  Cairnes 
justly  points  out,'  Society  can  dispense  with  a  large 
part  of  the  amount  if  necessary,  just  as  it  could 
stomach  far  more  commodities,  conveniences,  and 
luxuries,  if  it  could  get  them  easily. 

And  in  the  case  supposed  of  a  general  reduction  in 
working  hours,  society  will  and  must  reduce  the 
amount  of  its  consumption  of  all  things  except  abso- 
lute necessaries  ;  more  especially  as  a  large  part  of 
the  society  that  is  supposed  to  require  a  constant 
amount  of  commodities  and  services  is  composed  of 
foreigners  who  purchase  our  manufactures,  and  who 
would  certainly  purchase  less  if  the  prices  were  raised, 
which  would  be  the  consequence  of  reduced  hours 
unless  wages  were  reduced,  or  unless  more  energetic 
labour  for  the  shorter  day  resulted  in  as  great  pro- 
duction as  before. 

Let  us  trace  the  possible  consequences  more  fully 
and  specially.  Employers  will  get  eight  hours'  work 
from  their  employes  instead  of  ten  ;  that  is,  they  will 
get  only  four-fifths  work  from  them,  and  by  conse- 
quence only  four-fifths  the  amount  of  production  (or  of 
services)  for  the  same  wages,  assuming  the  efficiency 
of  labour  to  remain  the  same.  Omitting  the  con- 
sideration of  services  (though  the  argument  equally 

"  Leading  Principles  of  Political  Economy,"  Part  II.  c.  iv.  §  3. 


364  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND  OLD.    . 

applies  to  them),  and  considering  only  the  case  of 
productive  labour,  the  first  obvious  result  in  our 
largest  and  most  important  industries  would  be  the 
reduction  (and  in  some  cases  the  annihilation)  of 
employers'  profits,  as  well  as  of  interest  on  invest- 
ments in  such  industries. 

That  such  result  would  follow,  assuming  the 
efficiency  of  labour  not  to  increase,  can  be  easily 
demonstrated.  The  product  will  be  less  by  one- fifth  ; 
and  as  it  is  the  price  of  the  product  which  pays  wages 
and  profits  (including  interest),  unless  the  diminished 
product  can  be  sold  for  the  same  price  as  the  previous 
larger  product,  that  is,  unless  the  price  of  a  given 
quantity  or  measure  can  be  raised,  profits  must  suffer. 
Now  if  the  price  cannot  be  raised  with  any  advantage 
to  the  producer,  as  is  the  case  in  many  manufactures, 
and  if  wages  are  not  to  be  reduced,  of  course  profits 
would  bear  the  whole  brunt  of  the  diminished  produc- 
tion ;  and  they  might  sink  to  zero  or  a  negative 
quantity  in  some  cases. 

In  our  great  staple  industries,  prices  could  not  be 
raised  to  recoup  loss  of  profits  without  causing  a 
diminished  demand,  which  would  soon  result  in 
diminished  employment,  that  is,  the  unemployed 
would  be  increased.  The  diminished  demand  would  be 
more  diminished  wherever  we  are  closely  pressed  by 
foreign  competitors,  as  in  the  linen  and  cotton  trade, 
the  iron  and  steel  trade,  machine- making  and  other 
industries,  and  the  result  might  even  be  our  exclusion 
from  some  foreign  markets,  and  even  the  occupation 
of  a  part  of  the  home  market  by  cheaper  foreign  pro- 
duction.     But  if  prices  could  not   be   raised,  what 


AN   EIGPIT   HOURS'   WORKING   DAY.  365 

would  employers  do  ?  Would  they  be  likely  to  take 
on  additional  hands,  thereby  making  their  losses  still 
greater,  as  the  additional  hands  would  be  inferior 
hands  ?  Moreover,  whence  would  come  the  addi- 
tional capital  under  the  circumstances  of  declining 
profits  and  interest  ? 

What  would  happen  under  the  circumstances  in 
the  trades  in  question  (assuming  that  the  nature  of 
employers  and  investors  remains  the  same)  would  be 
a  reduction  of  wages  all  round  in  the  same  or  nearly 
the  same  proportion  as  the  reduction  of  working 
hours.  The  employed  might  strike,  but  if  the 
employers  were  firm,  the  former  would  have  to  give 
in.  Even  making  the  extreme  supposition  that  the 
State  forbade  the  reduction  of  wages  as  the  natural 
consequence  of  the  reduction  of  hours  of  work,  it 
would  not  benefit  the  labourers,  because  fewer  of 
them  would  be  employed  at  the  wage  which  did  not 
allow  average  profits.  Under  the  circumstances,  if 
wages  were  not  reduced,  capital  would  decrease. 
There  would  be  less  possibility  of  saving.  The  nor- 
mal increase  of  capital  required  each  year  beyond  the 
preceding  one  to  keep  pace  with  normal  increase  of 
population  would  not  be  forthcoming.  There  would 
be  less  possibility  of  saving,  both  because  incomes 
would  be  narrower,  and  there  would  be  less  induce- 
ments to  save  for  home  investments  yielding  less  in- 
terest, so  that  a  larger  proportion  of  the  smaller  saved 
capital  would  go  abroad,  unless,  indeed,  the  cii^dit 
hours'  movement, or  an  equivalent  reduction  inhoursi 
was  universal,  in  which  case  the  capital  would  stay  at 
home,  but  there  would  be  less  of  it.     New  companies 


366  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

would  cease  to  be  formed  at  home  ;  old  ones  would 
be  wound  up,  as  well  as  private  firms  ;  from  all  which 
causes  the  number  of  unemployed  labourers  would 
be  greatly  increased,  instead  of  being  lessened. 

Nor  should  too  much  reliance  be  placed  on  the 
"  double  shift  "  argument,  which  maintains  that  in 
certain  industries,  by  taking  on  two  successive  sets 
of  operatives  for  eight  hours,  profits  can  be  saved. 
Thus  we  are  told  that  many  manufacturers  in  the 
industries  requiring  much  fixed  capital  would  not 
object  to  an  eight  hours'  day,  if  they  could  get  a 
second  set  of  operatives  for  another  eight  hours,  as 
they  would  recover  any  possible  loss  on  the  result  of 
the  labour  of  the  first  set  by  the  additional  labour 
they  would  get  out  of  their  machinery  without  having 
to  pay  any  more  for  it  ;  that  is  to  say,  their  expenses 
as  regards  machinery,  consisting  of  interest  and  depre- 
ciation to  be  made  good,  being  the  same  whether 
the  machinery  works  eight  or  sixteen  hours,  if  they 
could  get  a  second  set  of  labourers  they  would,  as  it 
were,  be  getting  the  use  of  the  machinery  for  nothing, 
since  they  will  be  at  no  additional  expense  as  respects 
it  save  a  little  faster  wear  and  tear. 

The  argument  is  theoretically  sound  ;  and  it  would 
be  good  for  some  manufacturers  if  they  could  get  the 
second  shift  to  come  after  the  first.  But  it  seems  they 
can't,  for  if  they  could — the  argument  holding  equally 
good  for  a  nine  hours'  day — they  would  have 
done  it  already.  But  supposing  the  workers  were 
willing  to  go  for  a  second  shift,  what  would  be  the 
likely  result  ?  There  would  be  a  competition  to 
get  the  best  hands  for  the  second  shift,  which  would 


AN  EIGHT   HOURS'   WORKIXG  DAY.  367 

tend  to  raise  wages  and  to  draw  some  unemployed 
labourers.  There  would  not  be  many  of  the  latter, 
however,  as  there  is  nothing  to  increase  either  the 
foreign  or  home  demand,  prices  not  being  lower, 
there  would  only  be  the  same  quantity  of  production 
required  as  before,  and  consequently  only  the  same 
quantity  of  labour,  and  therefore  only  a  fifth  or  less 
additional  labourers  at  eight  hours  a  day.  We  may 
say  generally  there  would  only  be  the  same  number 
or  a  little  more  required  in  both  shifts  taken  together 
than  before,  that  is  a  little  more  than  half  the  number 
in  each,  or  if  the  same  number  were  kept  on  in 
each  they  must  work  only  half  time,  that  is  the 
machines  would  be  as  idle  as  before,  though  to  get 
fuller  efficiency  from  them  was  the  object  of  the  double 
shifts.  Such  would  be  the  rather  absurd  result  if 
the  labourers  were  spread  equally  over  all  the  factories 
in  the  industry.  What  would  happen,  however, 
under  the  competition  supposed,  would  rather  be 
that  the  most  able  and  energetic  employers  would 
perhaps  get  the  double  shifts  if  they  paid  sufficiently 
high  wages  ;  they  would  have  a  double  number  of 
the  best  labourers,  while  others  would  be  working 
half-time  in  each  shift,  while  others  again  would  be 
obliged  to  quit  tlic  business  altogether.  After  the 
weaker  firms  had  disappeared,  the  labourers  would 
have  the  eight  hours'  day  and  some  leisure,  at  the  cost 
of  a  certain  change  of  habits,  which  might  seem  more 
than  a  counterbalance.  There  would  also  be  higher 
profits  to  the  survivors,  and  some  additional  labourers 
employed. 

Such  is  the  general  result  that  would  happen  suppos- 


368  SOCIALISM  NEW  AND  OLD. 

ing  the  labourers  were  generally  willing  to  consent  to  a 
system  of  relays,"  but  the  system  being  for  the  present 
impracticable,  if  not  undesirable,  the  only  alternative 
to  save  profits  in  manufactories  would  be  a  reduction 
of  wages  in  factories  equal  to  the  reduction  in  time  : 
the  labourers  would  then  give  a  chance  to  some  of 
the  unemployed,  because  there  would  then  be  no 
need  to  raise  the  price,  the  foreign  demand  would 
not  contract,  and  there  would  be  additional  labourers 
required  to  supply  it,  whom  employers  could  take 
on  at  the  same  rate  as  the  other  labourers,  or  a 
slightly  reduced  rate,  without  loss  of  profit. 

But  the  general  objection  to  an  eight  hours'  act 
for  mills  and  factories,  unaccompanied  by  any  reduc- 
tion in  wages,  would  be  greatly  reduced  if  our  foreign 
competitors  made  a  similar  reduction  in  working  time, 
in  which  case  the  relative  advantages  or  disadvan- 
tages of  competing  nations  would  remain  as  before, 
and  we  should  have  no  fearof  a  reduction  of  our  foreign 
markets  by  an  advantage  given  to  rivals.  There 
would  then  only  be  a  contracted  demand  to  appre- 
hend from  the  raised  prices,  which  would  affect  our 
competitors  equally  with  ourselves,  while,  if  hours  were 
everywhere  reduced,  and  if  labour  generally  became 

-  A  writer  in  the  Nmeieenth  Century  (July,  1889)  thus  explains 
its  advantages  : — ''In  the  cotton  trade  it  can  be  shown  that  if  the 
hands,  instead  of  working  in  one  shift  of  nine  and  a  half  hours 
a  day,  worked  in  two  shifts  of  eight  hours  each,  the  extra  work 
got  out  of  the  machinery  would  more  than  compensate  the  mill- 
owner  for  the  diminution  of  hours," — which  implies  that  every 
mill-owner  could  recover  and  more  than  recover  profits,  and 
that  the  hands  are  willing  to  work  in  the  two  shifts  ;  the  second 
proposition  being  very  doubtful,  and  the  first  requiring  large 
qualification,  as  shown  above. 


AN  EIGHT   HOURS'  WORKING   DAY.  369 

more  efficient  through  the  additional  heart  and  energy- 
thrown  into  it,  as  to  some  extent  it  certainly  would, 
it  might  not  even  be  necessary  to  raise  prices,  in  which 
case  the  gain  would  be  more  than  the  loss.  Leisure, 
a  most  important  thing  for  the  labourers,  would  be 
gained  ;  and  if  the  labour  was  only  sufficiently  pro- 
ductive, the  employers  would  not  lose.  There  would 
not,  however,  in  this  case  be  any  additional  and  un- 
employed labourers  required.  The  whole  gain  would 
be  reaped  in  leisure  by  those  already  employed. 

As  much  might  be  gained,  even  though  the  labour 
were  less  efficient  than  we  have  supposed,  if  employers 
would  be  content  to  forego  a  part  of  their  profits,  not 
necessarily  large,  which  probably  a  small  rise  of  price 
would  restore  without  much  lowering  of  the  demand^ 
But  all  this  postulates,  in  addition  to  very  effective 
labour,  an  international  understanding  between  our 
Government  and  that  of  competing  countries  with 
respect  to  the  reduction  of  working  hours  ;  except 
indeed  in  those  industries  where  our  superiority  is 
great,  or  we  have  a  monopoly  of  the  foreign  market, 
in  which  cases  we  might  act  independently  within  the 
limits  of  our  advantage. 

II. 

What  wc  have  sa<d  hitherto  applies  to  our  great 
national  industries,  the  greater  part  of  the  production 
in  which  is  for  the  foreign  market.  In  these  indus- 
tries the  amount  of  the  product  required,  or  the 
demand,  is  never  fixed,  but  is  essentially  elastic.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  a  great  variety  of  other  indus- 
tries which  produce  commodities  not  absolutely  indis- 


370  SOCIALISM  NEW   AND  OLD. 

pensable.  The  consumption  is  not  fixed :  people 
consume  more  or  less  according"  to  the  cheapness  or 
dearness  in  the  case  of  things  which,  without  being  pre- 
cisely luxuries,  can  be  done  without  wholly  or  partly. 
In  these  cases  reduced  hours  would  result  in  elevated 
prices,  in  diminished  demand,  perhaps  in  greater  pro- 
portion than  the  diminished  production,  in  which 
case  there  would  be  lessened  employment,  or  else 
lessened  wages  for  the  same  number  of  employed. 
This  is  the  case  as  regards  a  great  number  of  pro- 
ducts consumed  by  the  middle  and  even  the  best  paid 
of  the  labouring  class,  such  products  including  all  the 
more  or  less  cheap  luxuries.  In  these  cases  the  con- 
traction in  demand  following  a  rise  in  price  diflbrs  in 
different  cases,  being  less  as  the  luxury  approaches 
nearer  to  the  character  of  a  necessary.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  amount  of  necessaries  consumed  in 
a  country,  the  amount  of  food,  clothes,  coal,  light,  is 
tolerably,  though  not  absolutely,  fixed.  The  amount 
of  food  in  particular  is  fixed,  though  not  any  parti- 
cular article  of  diet,  except  perhaps  bread.  A  fixed 
amount  of  bread  is  required,  and  consequently  a 
certain  quantity  of  baker's  labour,  but  not  of  English 
agricultural  labour,  since  much  of  the  required  wheat 
is  raised  in  America.  We  may  say,  however,  that  a 
tolerably  constant  quantity  of  baker's  labour  is  re- 
quired, as  well  as  of  miner's  labour ;  of  the  different 
kinds  of  labour  in  the  building  trades  (masons',  house 
carpenters',  &c.,)  in  the  clothing  trades,  in  the  furni- 
ture trades  ;  and  in  these  cases  the  reduction  of  hours 
would  require  the  taking  on  of  more  labourers.  The 
reduction   of  baker's  hours,  unless   machinery  could 


AN   EIGHT  HOURS'  WORKING  DAY.  3/1 

take  the  place  of  men,  would  give  employment  to 
more  bakers  ;  of  miner's  hours,  to  more  miners  ;  of 
gas  worker's,  to  more  gas  workers  (unless  people 
should  prefer  oil-lamps  to  gas)  ;  of  tailor's  hours,  to 
more  tailors.  In  all  these  cases  the  employer  could 
accept  reduced  hours  without  losing  profits.  But  he 
must  raise  the  price ;  though  not  necessarily  in 
the  same  proportion  as  the  hours  have  been  reduced, 
because  the  price  of  the  raw  material,  the  cloth 
or  flour,  has  not  been  affected  by  the  more  costly 
labour  of  the  baker  or  tailor.  The  price  of  bread,  of 
clothes,  of  fuel,  of  house-rent,  of  gas  would  all  rise 
though  in  different  degrees.  Some  of  the  unemployed 
would  be  required  in  all  these  trades,  especially  in  the 
mining  and  building  industries  ;  but  the  chief  con- 
tributors to  their  support  would  be,  not  the  employers, 
who  will  have  got  their  usual  profits,  nor  the  well-to-do 
part  of  the  public,  who  might  otherwise  have  had  to 
maintain  them  by  increased  rates,  but  the  labouring 
class  in  general,  as  being  the  great  consumers  of 
necessaries,  all  of  which  will  be  somewhat  raised  in 
price.  The  better  part  of  them,  if  they  agitate  for 
an  eight  hours'  day,  and  are  successful  in  getting 
it,  will  virtually  have  taxed  their  own  necessaries  for 
the  benefit  of  some  inferior  members  of  their  class. 

In  this  class  of  industries  they  would  have  merely 
submitted  to  a  reduction  of  wages  for  the  benefit  of 
some  of  the  unemployed.  They  would  themselves 
also  gain  more  leisure,  but  the  question  is,  are  they 
willing  and  anxious  to  submit  to  a  virtual  reduction 
of  wages  in  order  to  get  it  ?  As  regards  the 
general    question,    even    if    all    the    labourers,    or   a 


372  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND  OLD. 

decided  majority  of  them,  were  in  favour  of  the  eight 
hours'  day,  it  does  not  follow  that  they  should  have 
it,  for  it  might  be  bad  for  their  own  interest,  even  as 
they  themselves  understood  it,  or  it  might  be  bad  for 
interests  other  than  their  own,  or  the  majority  might 
be  made  up  largely  of  the  present  unemployed,  who 
would  like  the  chance  of  getting  work,  but  whose 
places  would  be  taken  by  a  different  class  of  unem- 
ployed. To  pass  a  law  which  would  certainly  have 
for  one  effect  to  create  a  new,  probably  a  larger, 
class  of  unemployed,  even  though  some  of  the  old 
ones  would  be  at  work,  could  hardly  be  considered  as 
either  just  or  expedient  policy.  Such  a  law  should 
not  be  passed  unless  it  were  first  demanded  by  a  large 
majority,  were  favourable  to  their  own  interests,  and 
not  too  injurious  to  other  interests.  But  the  con- 
trary of  all  these  it  would  be,  if  it  were  applied  to 
every  industry  under  present  circumstances. 

But  supposing  a  decided  majority  of  labourers  in  a 
single  industry  such  as  mining  were  agreed  as  to  the 
desirability  of  an  eight  hours'  day,  might  not  the 
State  in  such  a  case  be  asked  to  make  it  a  law  for 
that  industry,  since  otherwise  particular  employers 
in  agreement  with  their  labourers  might  find  it  their 
interest  to  go  against  the  majority  ?  It  would  depend 
on  the  special  circumstances  of  the  case,  one  being 
the  effect  of  the  law  on  other  labourers  and  the 
general  interest,  through  the  increased  price  of  the 
commodity.  The  State  should  not  interfere  with 
free  contract  between  employers  and  employed,  un- 
less for  a  decided  national  benefit,  or  to  redress  a 
hardship  or  injustice  suffered  by  a  class  of  labourers 


AN   EIGHT   HOURS'    WORKING   DAY.  373 

unable  to  protect  themselves  (as  in  the  case  of  the 
reduction  of  the  hours  of  women  and  children  in  the 
textile  industries).  Now  as  regards  mining,  eight 
hours  are,  without  doubt,  a  sufficiently  long  day's  work, 
the  labour  being  exhausting,  disagreeable,  and  dan- 
gerous, and  in  this  case  the  reduction  of  hours  would 
be  an  advantage  on  the  whole.  It  would  give  some 
leisure  to  hard-worked  men,  and  it  would  make  room 
for  additional  labourers,  while  the  rise  of  price  would 
only  affect  directly  one  or  at  most  two  articles  of  the 
labourer's  consumption,  coal  and  gas :  nevertheless, 
the  reduction  should  not  be  made  by  the  State  unless 
it  was  clear  that  a  very  large  majority  were  in  favour 
of  such  action  by  the  State. 

There  would  be  little  objection,  too,  to  an  eight 
hours'  working  day  in  shops,  whether  wholesale  or 
retail.  The  quantity  of  business  to  be  done  is  tolerably 
fixed,  as  people  have  to  make  their  customary  pur- 
chases whether  trade  is  bad  or  good,  though  they 
have  not  the  same  amount  to  spend.  If  the  shop 
hours  were  limited,  say  to  ten  hours  (the  work 
being  less  exhausting  than  some)  instead  of  twelve  or 
fourteen,  the  business  could  be  done  almost  as  well  bj'- 
the  present  staff,  without  any  need  to  increase  either 
the  number  of  distributors,  or,  in  consequence,  the 
price  of  the  goods.  All  that  would  be  necessary 
would  be  a  slight  change  in  the  habits  of  i)uichascrs. 
Only  so  far  as  the  distributors  send  their  employes 
to  deliver  goods  to  customers  would  prices  tend 
to  rise  by  reduced  working  hours,  as  more  employes 
would  be  required,  though  not  to  any  large  extent  ; 
and  in  this  particular  case   the    reduction  of  hours 

19 


374  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

would  be  almost  an  unmixed  good  to  all,  including 
the  shop-girls  and  shop-men  in  the  large  establish- 
ments ;  it  could  only  aftect  injuriously  the  smaller 
shops  that  supply  the  poorer  classes,  who  can  only 
purchase  at  special  times. 

There  are  other  industries  or  services  where  the 
working  hours  are  injuriously  long  :  as  in  the  baking, 
the  tailoring,  and  generally  in  the  clothing  trade,  the 
railway,  'bus,  and  tramcar  services.  In  the  case 
of  the  railways  a  reduction  would  result  in  an 
increased  staff  at  diminished  wages,  the  rates  not 
admitting  of  profitable  increase  ;  in  the  'bus  and  tram- 
cars  it  would  result  in  higher  fares,  perhaps  in  some 
ceasing  to  run  ;  while  in  the  case  of  the  East-end 
tailors  the  reduction  of  hours,  excessive  as  they  are, 
would  throw  many  of  them  out  of  work,  who  would 
be  opposed  to  it.  In  those  trades  or  businesses 
which  produce  luxuries  for  the  rich,  the  hours  might 
be  reduced  with  advantage  ;  more  would  be  employed, 
but  the  employers  would  not  lose,  as  they  could  raise 
their  prices,  which  would  be  cheerfully  paid  by 
people  to  whom  high  price  is  a  matter  of  indifference, 
sometimes  even  of  preference.  But  in  all  these  cases 
the  reduction,  wherever  desirable,  can  be  secured  by 
trades  unions,  except  in  the  case  of  shop-assistants. 

To  recapitulate  :  in  the  case  of  manufactures  an 
eight  hours'  day  would  result  either  in  reduced  wages 
for  the  same  number,  or  in  the  employment  of  a  less 
number,  from  diminished  demand  through  raised 
prices,  unless  labour  were  more  eiilicient.  There 
would  also  be  the  danger  of  losing  our  foreign 
markets,    unless  a   correrponding   reduction  of  time 


AN   EIGHT   HOURS'   WORKING   DAY.  3/5 

was  made  by  our  competitors.  In  the  case  of  a  large 
number  of  commodities  and  services  used  at  home 
but  not  absolutely  necessary,  where  the  demand 
expands  or  contracts  with  the  price,  reduced  hours 
and  raised  prices  would  result  generally  in  lower 
wages  or  lessened  employment,  though  not  equally 
so  in  all  cases.  In  the  case  of  necessaries  for  home 
consumption,  reduced  hours  would  raise  prices,  though 
not  perhaps  greatly  in  the  cases  of  bread  or  clothes. 
In  these  cases,  self-interest  being  assumed,  unanimity 
amongst  labourers  is  hardly  to  be  expected.  The  un- 
employed would  gain  by  an  eight  hours'  day  at  the 
cost  of  the  community,  and  chiefly  of  the  employed  ; 
therefore  legislation  would  be  inexpedient.  In  the 
case  of  mining,  the  limitation  of  hours  would,  on  the 
whole,  be  a  decided  gain.  The  only  interest  affected 
unfavourably  would  be  that  of  the  consumer,  who 
should,  however,  be  willing  to  forego  something  to 
benefit  a  large  class  of  overworked  labourers.  It  is 
not  so  certain  that  the  State  should  effect  the  limita- 
tion, since  a  decided  majority  in  combination  could 
effect  it  for  themselves,  the  employers'  interest  not 
being  adverse  in  this  case  to  that  of  the  employed. 
In  the  case  of  tiic  East-end  tailors  and  others  worked 
excessively  long  hours  (or  paid  very  low  wages)  the 
interference  of  the  State  would  merely  throw  a  number 
of  them  out  of  work,  and  would  not  be  acce[)tablc 
to  them.  The  long  hours  or  low  wages  here  come 
from  the  fact  that  there  are  too  many  of  them  seek- 
ing einployment.  If  the  numbers  were  less,  they 
could  prevent  the  long  hours  or  low  wages.  And 
even  as  it   is,  if  they  wanted  less  hours,  they  could 


376  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

effect  it  for  themselves  by  trades  unions,  and  the 
refusal  to  work  so  long  ;  but  they  could  only  do 
so  at  the  cost  of  some  of  their  numbers  being  thrown 
out  of  work.  They  cannot  all,  therefore,  afford  to 
go  into  trades  unions  to  lower  hours  or  raise  wages, 
which  would  merely  have  for  effect  the  exclusion 
of  a  number  of  them  altogether.  In  this  particular 
case  it  is  the  excessive  competition  from  excessive 
numbers  due  to  foreign  immigration,  which  lies  at 
the  bottom  of  the  long  hours.  Where  the  numbers 
are  excessive,  neither  the  State  nor  trades  unions 
can  prevent  the  evils,  except  by  excluding  some  of 
the  workers,  that  is,  increasing  the  unemployed. 


CHAPTER   XII. 
Practicable  State  Socialism: 

(ii.)  — by    the    extension    of    government 
management  in  the  sphere  of  industry. 

I. 

It  remains  to  consider  how  far  the  State  might 
itself  advantageously  undertake  a  certain  portion 
of  the  field  of  industry.  At  present  it  works  satis- 
factorily, as  well  as  successfully  from  the  economical 
point  of  view,  the  postal  and  telegraph  services,  and 
it  has  recently  extended  the  postal  service  so  as  to 
include  the  transport  of  small  parcels  ;  that  is  to 
say,  it  has  to  a  certain  extent  become,  in  conjunction 
with  the  railway  companies,  a  carrier  of  goods.  To 
be  a  complete  carrier  even  of  parcels,  it  should  own 
the  railways,  their  rolling  stock  and  other  adjuncts  ; 
and  the  question  arises,  whether  the  Government 
might  not  undertake  wholly  the  carriage  of  goods  and 
passengers  by  purchasing  the  railways,  and  working 
them  in  the  public  interest?  It  is  a  kind  of  work 
peculiarly  suitable  for  Government  management, 
being  largely  of  a  uniform  and  routine  character,  not 
demanding  from  the  general  managers  the  compli- 
cated calculations  and  resources  required  in  manu- 
facturing industry,  and  for  which  work,  however 
responsible  or  difficult,  the  Government  could  secure 
as  capable  managers  as  the  companies.     Besides,  the 


378  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

railway  interest  is  of  the  nature  of  a  huge  though 
qualified  monopoly  ;  or  rather  there  are  as  many 
monopolies  as  there  are  companies  without  com- 
petition. Hence  the  chief  check  on  the  monopo- 
lists' charges  in  freights  and  rates  is  their  own  sense 
of  self-interest,  which  is  by  no  means  always  coin- 
cident with  the  public  interest  or  convenience.  It 
is  irue  that  our  great  railway  companies  have  not 
abused  their  position  to  the  gross  extent  that  the 
companies  in  the  United  States  have  done,  but  there 
have  been  abuses,  and  they  are  liable  to  abuse  to  a 
degree  which  would  not  be  possible  if  they  were  under 
the  control  of  the  Government,  with  no  other  interest 
but  that  of  the  general  public. 

If  the  State  undertook  their  management,  the 
working  expenses  would  probably  be  reduced  by 
diminished  salaries  to  directors  for  one  item,  and  the 
gross  receipts  would  probably  be  increased  by  the 
greater  regard  paid  to  the  public  convenience  and 
comfort.  For  this  would  increase  the  number  of 
passengers,  while  the  amount  of  traffic  would  not  be 
decreased  by  fairer  freight,  which  would  facilitate 
trade.  The  result  would  most  likely  be  a  fair  balance 
of  net  profits  beyond  their  present  amount,  which 
would  be  for  the  public  benefit,  and  which  might 
be  employed  to  reduce  taxation,  or  in  other  ways. 
The  purchase  of  the  railways  and  their  adjuncts 
would,  however,  necessitate  the  borrowing  of  some 
700  to  800  millions  sterling,  the  interest  on  which 
could  be  paid  by  the  profits  resulting,  with  some- 
thing left  to  help  to  extinguish  the  principal,  it 
deemed  advisable.     And  the   disengaged  capital  oi 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  379 

the  paid-off  shareholders,  what  is  to  be  done  with 
it  ?  As  to  that,  it  would  partly  go  to  fill  up  vacancies 
made  in  other  investments  by  the  Government  bor- 
rowing for  the  railways,  partly  it  might  swell  the 
general  loan  fund  so  that  some  of  it  would  overflow  into 
foreign  investments,  if  there  were  not  enough  promis- 
ing new  enterprises  at  home  ;  the  total  effect  being 
most  likely  beneficial  by  calling  forth  extra  savings. 
Or,  the  financial  change  might  be  less,  as  many 
of  the  shareholders  might  prefer  to  leave  their 
shares  under  the  Government  management,  that  is, 
to  lend  their  money,  supposing  they  got  their  old 
interest  or  something  near  it,  so  that  to  the  extent 
that  they  did  so  there  would  be  a  mere  transfer  of 
their  credit  to  the  Government  instead  of  to  the 
railway  companies. 

One  result  would  be  a  great  increase  in  the  civil 
service  of  the  State,  and  an  increase  of  Govern- 
ment influence.  There  would  be  a  number  of 
appointments  with  varying  salaries  thrown  open  to 
the  general  competition  of  the  whole  nation,  with 
a  certain  equalizing  and  diffusing  of  opportunities, 
wherein  would  consist  its  chief  good  result.  It 
would  be  so  far  a  carrying  out  of  the  St.  Simonian 
ideal  of  awarding  places  according  to  talent,  without 
regard  to  the  favour  or  patronage  of  individuals. 
There  would  be  abler  persons  filling  the  higher  ap- 
pointments than  at  present,  because  the  ability  of  a 
wider  area  would  be  drawn  upon. 

And  having  gone  thus  far,  is  the  State  to  stop  or 
go  farther  and  absorb  all  industries,  substituting  its 
own  management  for  that  of  the  private  capitalist 


3S0  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

or  the  company  ?  This  question  the  Collectivist 
or  co-operative  Socialist  answers  very  confidently  in 
the  affirmative.  All  industries  are  to  be  absorbed 
one  after  another,  or  all  together  ;  the  manufactur- 
ing, the  mining,  the  carrying,  the  distributing  (or 
shopkeeping),  even  the  agricultural,  the  exporting 
and  importing — all  these  huge  provinces  are  to  be 
annexed.  Private  enterprise,  or  exploiting  for  a  profit 
as  it  is  called,  is  to  be  extinguished,  and  the  State 
or  the  collectivity  is  to  be  all  in  all,  as  well  as  the 
owner  of  all,  in  the  sphere  of  industry.  This  scheme 
in  its  universality  we  have  already  examined  and 
pronounced  judgment  upon;  and  there  only  remains 
to  add  a  few  words  with  respect  to  certain  portions 
of  it. 

For  many  reasons  every  addition  to  Govern- 
mental management  in  the  sphere  of  industry  should 
be  slow  and  tentative,  of  the  nature  of  an  experiment 
requiring  a  whole  generation  to  read  the  resulting 
experience  rightly  and  free  from  doubt.  And  the 
Government  should  make  a  long  pause  after  the 
absorption  of  the  railways  before  it  took  the  much 
more  responsible  step  of  venturing  into  the  field  of 
production  proper,  because  with  all  drawbacks  the 
present  system  of  private  and  individualistic  enter- 
prise has  been  fairly  successful,  and  far  more  so  than 
we  could  hope  that  Governmental  management  in 
general  would  be.  We  can  see  strong  reason  why 
the  private  capitalist  who  has  made  or  inherited  his 
place  is  a  better  man  for  it  than  the  superior  Govern- 
ment official,  generally  devoid  of  initiative,  and  with 
less   keen  interest  and  energy.     The  capitalist  actual 


PRACTICABLE   STATE  SOCIALISM.  38 1 

or  potential  is  under  the  keenest  known  stimulus  to 
the  efficient  production  and  exchange  of  his  wares, 
to  the  discovery  and  annexing  of  new  markets,  to 
the  trial  of  new  and  likely  enterprises  by  which  he 
may  make  a  fortune.  He  will  find  capital,  he  will 
undertake  risks,  he  will  finally  succeed,  if  only  he  is 
assured  of  the  fruits  of  his  enterprise  when  successful. 
In  these  ways  capitalists  have  enriched  the  country 
by  the  establishment  of  wholly  new  industries  which 
would  not  have  existed  without  them.  Nor  is  there 
reason  to  think  that  Government  in  future,  even 
with  the  command  of  scientific  knowledge  and  in- 
ventive faculty,  would  be  so  successful  in  the  creation 
and  development  of  new  industries  as  private  enter- 
prise urged  to  sleepless  activity  by  the  hope  of  a 
fortune,  or  of  great  additional  profits. 

The  stimulus  of  private  interest  would  be  greatly 
weakened  under  complete  State  Socialism,  and  unless 
other  motives  which  now  are  weak,  such  as  benevo- 
lence, public  spirit,  honour,  can  be  strengthened 
by  opinion,  by  morals,  or  by  miracle,  or  unless  the 
latent  ability  in  the  "  nouvelles  couches  sociales" 
which  would  be  evoked  and  stirred  to  great  activity 
by  the  career  opened  out  for  it  would  partly  com- 
pensate, the  certainty  is  that  production  would  be  less, 
and  that  there  would  be  a  diffused  poverty,  with  a 
less  reserve  for  disinterested  intellectual  needs.  For 
these  reasons,  amongst  others,  the  State  should  be 
slow  and  cautious  in  making  an  inroad  into  the 
territory  of  private  productive  enterprise,  which  more- 
over would  be  more  contrary  to  traditional  usa'^^c 
and    sentiment    in    these   countries    than    in    others 


382  SOCIALISM   NKW    AND  OLD. 

where  the  functions  of  the  State  have  always  been 
wider  in  the  industrial  sphere. 

But  these  considerations,  however  strong,  may  in 
some  directions  have  to  give  way  to  stronger,  and 
they  have  considerably  less  force  in  the  case  of  the 
mining  industries,  both  because  the  raising  of  coal 
or  metalliferous  ore  does  not  seem  a  work  the 
management  of  which  calls  for  any  transcendent 
ability  in  the  mine-owner,  who  moreover  mostly 
deputes  the  work  to  a  manager,  and  next  because 
these  extractive  industries  easily  lend  themselves  to 
monopolies  and  combinations  injurious  to  the  public 
interest,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Pennsylvania  coal- 
masters,  who  agreed  to  limit  supply  so  as  to  keep 
up  prices.  There  are  other  reasons  why  the  produc- 
tion of  coal,  which  is  both  a  primary  necessary  of 
life,  and  the  basis  of  all  our  industries,  should  be 
under  the  management  of  the  State,  which  could  take 
more  precautions  for  the  safety,  and  care  for  the 
health,  of  the  large  mining  population,  probably 
thereby  saving  the  cost  of  the  present  inspectors.  We 
should  not  then  have  restrictions  on  the  output  of 
coal  as  in  the  year  of  the  coal  famine,  for  the  sake  of 
raising  prices  ;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  a  too  liberal 
use  or  reckless  waste,  or  even  a  too  free  export  of  a 
prime  necessary  of  future  generations,'     Mining  is  a 

^  On  this  point  Prof.  Sidgwick  remarks,  "  The  restriction  of 
private  property  in  the  contents  of  the  earth  may  hereafter  be- 
come a  matter  of  great  practical  importance,  through  the  pro- 
gress of  geology  and  the  gradual  exhaustion  of  the  stores  of 
valuable  minerals  easily  obtainable.''  ("  Principles  of  PoL 
Econ.,"  Bock  III.  ch.  iv.  §  13.) 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  383 

case  where  the  maximum  of  State  interference  is 
aheady  called  for,  and  already  exists  ;  it  would  be 
only  going  a  little  further  to  substitute  complete 
State  management  for  the  private  enterprise  that 
requires  so  much  regulation.  The  State  could  then 
set  an  example  of  the  virtues  which  it  has  inculcated 
on  the  present  owners,  but  which  they  have  found  so 
hard  to  practise,  and  the  resulting  experience  would 
be  of  great  service  before  going  any  farther  in  the 
direction  of  State  Socialism.  The  State  management 
would  both  disclose  its  own  capacities,  and  it  would 
exercise  a  very  salutary  effect  on  the  much  greater 
field  of  productive  industry,  remaining  intact  under 
private  direction. 

As  to  our  great  industries  which  have  been  planted 
and  developed  under  private  enterprise,  they  should 
be  left  to  private  enterprise,  until  at  least  the  great 
superiority  of  Government  management  is  demon- 
strated ;  but  they  may  be  interfered  with  in  the 
interest  of  the  workers'  health  and  comfort,  and  the 
proceeds  are  to  be  held  liable  to  such  requisitions  as 
the  State  may  deem  just  and  fair.  In  addition  to 
manufacturing  and  agricultural  industry — embracing 
most  of  the  production  proper  of  goods — their  circu- 
lation should  be  left  to  voluntary  enterprise,  which  in 
the  form  of  the  Co-operative  Store,  and  the  great 
wholesale  house,  is  fast  eliminating  the  unnecessary 
and  parasitic  middle-men  whose  profits  so  largely 
swell  the  consumer's  price.  No  doubt  the  small  men 
will  go  to  the  wall  as  well  as  the  unnecessary  middle- 
men, but  this  though  a  painful  necessity,  is  a  less  evil 
than  the    alternative  of  high  prices  to  the  poor  for 


3^4  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND  OLD. 

inferior  goods.  And  the  great  distributing  capitalist 
will  make  great  profits  ;  but  he  also  confers  a  service, 
and  those  who  do  not  like  him  are  free  to  patronize 
their  own  co-operative  stores.  The  sale  of  drink, 
food,  drugs,  and  the  like,  may  be  interfered  with  to 
secure  purity  and  good  quality  to  the  public,  but 
there  would  be  no  advantage  gained  by  the  State  or 
municipalities  undertaking  the  work  of  distribution, 
and  substituting  its  officials  for  the  existing  ones. 
In  fact  if  the  State  is  not  the  universal  producer,  it 
could  not  with  any  advantage  be  the  general  distribu- 
tor, though  by  appointing  inspectors  to  certify  as  to 
quality,  it  performs  a  useful  and  necessary  work  in 
protecting  the  public,  while  leaving  the  work  in  the 
hands  otherwise  best  suited  to  it. 

The  public  might  also  require  protection  from  high 
prices  due  to  monopoly  through  the  combination  of 
distributors,  which  is  more  possible  in  the  sphere  of 
distribution  than  in  that  of  production,  and  to  which, 
moreover,  there  is  a  distinctly  increasing  tendency  at 
present  in  certain  directions,  and  here  it  would  seem 
desirable  that  the  monopolists  should  have  before  their 
mind  the  possibility  of  State  interference,  and  even  of 
State  expropriation  as  a  salutary  restraint  to  prevent 
too  great  abuse  of  their  position. 

There  is  one  necessary,  in  addition  to  fuel,  light 
and  water,  the  production  of  which  cannot  be 
wholly  left  to  private  enterprise, — namely,  houses, 
so  far  as  intended  for  the  working  classes  and  the 
poor.  The  municipalities  should  in  the  first  instance 
supply  a  certain  proportion  of  houses  of  this  descrip- 
tion  in  order  to  break  the  monopoly  of  the  present 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  385 

owners,  and  to  deliver  the  poor  from  exorbitant  rents, 
amounting  frequently  to  a  quarter  of  their  wages,  for 
a  bad  house.  The  ground  landlord,  the  builder,  and 
the  house-owner  between  them  divide  a  very  large 
revenue,  levied  on  every  one  in  the  form  of  rents,  but 
which  press  especially  on  the  poor,  the  rent  of  whose 
houses  is  raised  to  a  scarcity  price  in  many  places, 
because  they  must  live,  or  find  it  convenient  to  live, 
near  their  place  of  work,  and  because  there  are  many 
applicants.  The  demand  for  houses  and  house  ac- 
commodation exceeding  the  supply,  forces  up  the  rent, 
though  the  house  be  bad  and  unhealthy  ;  and  here  is 
one  case  where  the  municipalities  might  counteract 
the  selfishness,  and  stay  the  hand  of  the  house-owner, 
by  partly  supplying  houses  for  the  lower  classes  at 
rents  which  would  allow  them  only  current  interest. 


II. 

There  is  a  large  province  of  industry  in  which 
co-operative  labour  cannot  be  applied  with  any  very 
decided  advantage,  and  in  which  for  other  reasons  it 
is  not  desirable  to  attempt  it  on  a  large  scale.  I 
mean  agriculture,  because  in  it  the  advantages  of  the 
large  system  of  production  so  conspicuous  in  manu- 
factures is  disputed,  and  in  any  case  is  not  great, 
while  the  application  of  it  on  a  large  scale  in  Europe 
generally,  would  amount  not  only  to  a  universal  a^^ra- 
rian  revolution,  but  to  a  revolution  in  social  habits 
and  in  daily  private  life.  Here,  therefore,  there  is  no 
room  for  State  enterprise,  any  more  than  for  the 
extreme    thing  desired   by  the    collcctivist-socialists. 


386  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

For  hundreds  of  years  the  cultivators  of  the  land 
have  been  living  in  France,  Germany,  and  most 
countries  in  isolated  farmhouses,  or  in  villages,  culti- 
vating the  soil  with  the  help  of  the  grown  members 
of  their  families,  and  sometimes  of  hired  labourers. 
This  has  been  the  case  too  in  Ireland,  Scotland, 
Wales,  and  (though  to  a  much  less  extent)  in  England 
also.  The  cultivators  of  the  land  are  attached  to 
their  way  of  life,  and  everywhere  are  peculiarly 
conservative  in  habits  and  sentiments. 

Now  co-operative  farming,  as  conceived  by  the 
Socialists,  would  require  them  to  change  their  way  of 
life,  to  live  in  a  common  residence,  or  at  least  in  close 
proximity  to  each  other,  to  abandon  their  traditional 
homesteads,  to  give  up  their  sense  of  private  pro- 
prietary rights,  their  sense  of  independence,  the  things, 
the  most  cherished  and  consecrated  in  their  feelings, 
and  that  make  the  very  essence  of  their  life,  and  all 
for  what?  That  by  their  united  labour  thrown  into 
a  common  stock  they  might  finally,  after  re-division, 
have  perhaps  a  little  more  than  they  would  have  had 
working  on  their  own  farm  for  themselves.  For  this 
doubtful  gain  added  to  the  inseparable  company  of 
their  fellow-co-  operators,  of  which  they  might  easily 
have  too  much,  they  are  to  submit  to  be  officered  and 
biigaded  by  the  State.  For  a  possible  trifle  extra  per 
annum,  they  are  to  bring  themselves,  or  let  them- 
selves be  put  into  community  enforced  and  distasteful, 
(for  all  this  is  gravely  proposed  by  the  Collectivist 
leaders,  though  for  prudential  reasons  but  slightly 
referred  to  in  working-men's  programmes).  But 
however  tempting  the  prospect  is  made,  and  however 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  387 

the  authority  of  the  State  is  kept  in  the  background, 
I  do  not  think  many  peasant  proprietors  in  France 
would  be  tempted  to  voluntarily  enter  the  Co-operative 
and  Coliectivist  Commonwealth  so  far  as  it  embraces 
agriculture. 

And  now  let  the  Authoritarian  Socialist  observe 
that  the  extra  amount  per  annum  would  certainly  not 
be  forthcoming ;  since  it  is  precisely  in  the  case  of 
peasant  properties  or  good  land  tenures  that  the  indi- 
vidual owner  or  tenant  is  stimulated  to  the  maximum 
of  industry  and  careful  cultivation,  because  the  results 
directly  accrue  to  himself,  while  under  co-operative 
farming  it  would  not  be  his  obvious  interest  to  labour 
with  such  energy.  On  the  contrary,  it  would  be  each 
one's  interest  to  do  least,  provided  the  others  did  not 
act  on  the  same  rule,  and  there  would  be  the  fatal 
temptation  to  each  to  do  less  than  his  utmost,  which 
not  even  the  presence  of  the  overseer  (however 
necessary  under  the  system)  could  overcome  wholly  ; 
from  which  it  follows  that  even  aided  by  the  best 
machines  and  the  largest  holdings,  the  quota  of  the 
co-operative  farmer  would  be  less  than  that  of  the 
individual  farmer. 

Let  us  add,  to  come  near  home,  that  in  Ireland, 
or  the  Highlands,  or  in  Wales,  as  it  would  be  wholly 
impossible  to  get  the  present  occupiers  into  the 
agricultural  brigades,  so  even  if  it  were  tried  with 
agricultural  labourers  it  is  much  to  be  feared  that  they 
would  disagree  amongst  themselves.  And  they  cer- 
tainly would  do  so,  as  well  as  take  their  work  easy, 
unless  the  discipline  of  the  brigades  was  of  the 
strictest  kind. 


388  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

For  these  reasons,  I  should  recommend  the  Socialist 
to  give  up  the  idea  of  including,  merely  for  the  sake 
of  symmetry  and  universality,  the  farmers  in  the 
Co-operative  Commonwealth.  The  older  agrarian 
Socialism  will  suit  them  better — that  which  aimed 
at  equality  in  the  main  and  liberty,  and  which 
secured  it  by  planting  each  one  under  his  own  vine, 
at  a  convenient  distance  from  his  fellows,  but  not  too 
far  for  neighbourly  help  and  voluntary  co-operation. 
This  has  succeeded  in  France,  in  the  United  States, 
and  other  countries,  and  it  is  a  further  development 
of  this  that  we  want  in  Ireland  and  parts  of  Great 
Britain,  and  not  Co-operative  Farming,  which  for 
political,  social,  and  historical  reasons,  is  out  of  the 
question. 

Here,  then,  is  one  very  large  industrial  province  not 
suitable  for  State  management,  and  a  very  large 
population  that  for  a  very  long  time  must  be  exempted 
from  citizenship  in  the  Co-operative  Commonwealth. 
The  farming  class  of  Europe  and  the  United  States 
are  not  indeed  opposed  to  Socialism,  but  they  will 
only  be  Socialists  in  their  own  fashion,  and  in  the  old 
sense.  They  are  not,  as  a  rule,  opposed  to  the  diffe- 
rent Socialism  of  the  town  artisan,  which  aims  at  the 
control  and  possession  of  capital,  only  they  think  it 
does  not  concern  them,  provided  it  does  not  bring 
prolonged  anarchy. 

in. 

And  here  I  find  myself  between  the  "  points  of 
mighty  opposites,^^  between  Adam  Smith  and  all  the 
classical  economists  reinforced  by  Herbert   Spencer 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  389 

on  the  one  side,  and  on  the  other,  St.  Simon,  Karl 
Marx,  Lassalle,  Louis  JBlanc,  and  all  the  radical  and 
systematic  Socialists.  The  reasons  for  rejecting 
Socialism  and  the  Socialist  solution  of  our  social 
difficulties  I  have  already  given  at  length  ;  it  remains 
to  justify  the  middle  position  held  by  showing  the 
insup:;rable  objections  to  the  opposite  system  of  non- 
interference in  the  economic  sphere,  of  which  Mr. 
Spencer  is  perhaps  the  most  eminent  living  advocate. 
It  must  indeed  be  allowed  that  any  doctrine  pro- 
ceeding from  the  philosopher  of  Evolution  deserves 
weighty  consideration,  and  he  is  wholly  opposed 
to  State  intervention  in  the  sphere  of  industry, 
whether  in  the  way  of  regulation  or  management. 
He  furnishes  new  arguments  to  the  laissez-faire 
school,  drawn  from  the  general  principles  of  his 
philosophy.  The  functions  of  the  State,  he  thinl<s, 
should  be  minimized  both  in  its  legislative  and 
administrative  capacity  ;  it  is  not  its  business  to  un- 
dertake industry  at  all.  In  the  ideal  Society  of  the 
far  future,  the  functions  of  the  State  will  have 
ceased  in  its  legislative  capacity.  There  will  be  no  need 
of  coercive  law  when  our  nature  has  been  completely 
broken  in  or  adapted  to  its  environment :  right  con- 
duct will  then  be  done  as  a  matter  of  course,  and  will 
even  be  pleasurable,  so  that  laws  with  penalties  may 
be  dispensed  with.  Its  administrative  sphere  also 
will  be  reduced  to  zero  when  industrialism  shall  h;ive 
completely  extruded  militarism.  There  will  be  no 
army,  no  navy,  and  the  Civil  Service  will  be  reduced 
to  the  smallest  compass.  In  fact  the  State,  if  evolu- 
tion only  goes  in  the  lines  it  should  and  would  go, 


390  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

if  men  would  be  wise  and  not  perversely  set  it  on 
the  wrong  track  as  they  are  evidently  now  doing,- — 
the  State  will  in  time  become  almost  a  great  rudi- 
mentary organ,  serving  only  for  ornamental  and  cere- 
monial purposes,  and  as  a  reminder  of  what  it  once 
was  ;  but  no  longer  necessary.  It  will  be  a  great  sur- 
vival, merely  testifying  to  a  past  unhappy  history,  and 
to  unfortunate  but  long-forgotten  human  necessities. 

In  the  future  perfect  social  state,  however,  there  is 
to  be  co-operation,  because,  as  Mr.  Spencer  tells  us  in 
the  '*  Data  of  Ethics,"  in  that  state  "  complete  living 
is  secured  through  voluntary  co-operation,"  and  the 
fundamental  principle  of  distribution  is  "that  the  life- 
sustaining  actions  of  each  shall  severally  bring  him  the 
amounts  and  kinds  of  advantage  naturally  achieved  by 
them"  (p.  149), or  in  less  abstract  language,  that  "bene- 
fits received  be  proportioned  to  services  rendered," 
this  being  the  universal  basis  of  co-operation.  But  that 
benefits  be  proportioned  to  services  implies  two 
things.  First,  that  there  be  "  no  direct  aggressions 
on  person  or  property  ;"  secondly,  "  no  indirect 
aggressions  by  breach  of  contract."  If  these  two 
negative  conditions  be  observed,  life  will  be  facilitated 
up  to  a  certain  point.  The  industrial  life  will  be 
complete,  and  industrialism,  which  is  the  antithesis 
of  militarism,  will  have  its  full  and  free  sphere. 
Nevertheless  such  life  would  be  incomplete;  for  "a 
society  is  conceivable  formed  of  men  leading  per- 
fectly inoffensive  lives,  scrupulously  fulfilling  their 
contracts,  and  efficiently  rearing  their  offspring,  who 
yet  yielding  to  one  another  no  advantages  beyond 
*  See  "  Man  versus  the  State." 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  39 1 

those  agreed  upon,  fall  short  of  that  highest  life 
which  the  gratuitous  rendering  of  services  makes 
possible."  Accordingly,  then,  this  incomplete  life, 
which  nevertheless  complies  with  all  the  conditions 
of  industrialism,  and  strictly  owes  to  no  man  anything, 
must  be  supplemented  by  gratuitous  rendering  of 
services,  in  order  to  reach  the  highest  life  which  lies 
at  "the  limit  of  evolution."  There  should  be  both 
give  and  take  as  regards  these  extra  virtuous  deeds,  be- 
cause they  do  good  to  both  parties.  The  giver  has  a 
special  gratification,  the  receiver  a  special  good,  and 
both  increase  the  "  quantity  of  life." 

This  complete  living,  and  the  perfect  social  state, 
however,  lie  a  long  way  off,  in  fact  countless  gene- 
rations. Meantime,  as  we  stumble  along  slowly 
towards  it,  co-operation  is  necessary,  and  at  the 
basis  of  co-operation  is  the  eternal  requisite  that 
benefits  should  be  proportioned  to  effort  or  services. 
But  how  to  proportion  benefits  to  services,  or  reward 
to  work,  is  precisely  where  all  the  trouble  lies.  This 
is,  in  fact,  the  social  problem.  According  to  Mr. 
Spencer  two  conditions  must  be  first  observed  ;  life 
and  property  must  be  assured, and  contracts  fulfilled  ; 
while  according  to  most  modern  social  reformers, 
property  and  contract, — laws  of  property  and  the 
power  of  making  and  enforcing  unfair  contracts — have 
produced  great  social  evils,  and  now  prevent  benefits 
from  being  proportioned  to  services. 

The  monopoly  of  capital  in  relatively  few  hands 
has  made  the  worker  dependent,  and  in  the  contract 
with  the  owner  of  capital,  the  worker  is  in  an  uncciual 
and  necessitous  position  which  comi^cls  him  to  accept 


392  SOCIALISM    NEW   AND   OLD. 

what  he  can  get,  which  is  not  necessarily  a  benefit 
proportioned  to  his  services  ;  while  the  small  tenant 
farmer  in  his  contract  might  be  compelled  hitherto 
to   pay    all   above    bare    subsistence,    if  rents    were 
determined   by  competition,   if  the  landlord  insisted 
on  his  bond,  and  if  the  law  backed  him  up.     And  how 
do  Mn  Spencer's  conditions  of  social  life  under  full 
industrialism    help    us   here   to    solve  this  difficulty 
which  is  urgent  ?     We  are  to  let  things  alone.     The 
State  is  not  to  interfere ;  not  to  try  ever  so  little  to 
redress  the  balance,  or  to  diminish  the  dangerous  in- 
equality of  property,  no  matter  what  its  origin.     It  is 
sacred  once  called  property,  or  once  its  acquisition  has 
complied  with  the  coarse  conditions  which  imperfect 
and  often  selfishly  made  laws  prescribe.  Do  not  aggress 
after  that.     But  is  it  not  evident  that  laws  of  property 
and  contract,  the  legal  conditions  of  acquisition  and 
ownership  have  powerfully  assisted  in  bringing  about 
our  actual  social  situation  and  overgrown  inequality  ? 
And    that    without    some    alteration    in    these    and 
some  interference   of  the   State  the  evils  could    not 
be   corrected  ?      In    short,   on    the   path   before   us, 
on  the  way  to  the   Spencerian    millennium,  we    are 
confronted  with  a  tremendous  social  problem,  which 
has  convulsed  nations,  which  has  already  produced 
two  or  three   revolutions  and    formidable    risings  in 
France,  which  is   now  agitated   in  all  civilized  lands, 
in   Germany,    France,  the    United   States,    England, 
which  must  be  dealt  with  somehow,  and  we  expect  a 
crrcat  writer  on  Sociology  to  tell  us  how  to  deal  with 
it.     In  his  "Social  Statics,"  indeed,  he  lecoinmended 
the  nationalization  of  the  land,  in  his  "  Political  In- 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  393 

stitutlons,"  he  still  thinks  that  the  nation  may  one 
day  resume  possession  of  it,  but  is  not  certain.  As  to 
the  Capital  and  Labour  Question,  he  gives  us  no 
answer  in  his  latest  book,  "  Man  versus  the  State," 
save  a  repetition  of  laissez-faire.  Don't  interfere  to 
regulate  industry,  and  don't  interfere  to  manage. 
This,  however,  leaves  the  question  unsolved,  and  pre- 
sumably his  solution  is  that  it  will  settle  itself,  if  only 
the  State  will  be  completely  neutral,  v/hile  if  the  State 
interferes  it  will  make  matters  worse.  But  it  might 
take  a  long  and  painful  time  to  settle  itself,  and  it 
might  not  settle  itself  peacefully.  What  would  the 
State  do  in  the  latter  painful  contingency  ?  It  might 
have  to  interfere,  or  even  take  a  side,  or  worse,  there 
might  be  the  dreaded  militarism  in  its  worst  shape  of 
civil  war  to  get  the  control  of  the  State,  as  the  violent 
Socialists  threat.e.1. 

Without  interference,  it  might  happen  that  most  of 
the  capital  in  a  country  might  pass  into  the  hands 
of  a  relatively  small  class,  as  might  the  land,  in  which 
case  there  might  be  the  practical  slavery  of  the  majority 
of  the  nation,  of  all  who  work  and  render  service. 
In  such  case  what  may  be  the  actual  reward  of  a 
large  section  of  the  labourers?  liarc  subsistence,  if 
the  population  be  numerous,  while  the  superior  clas.ses 
may  roll  in  splendour.  And  would  this  approach  to 
the  realization  of  the  formula  for  a  fair  division  — the 
proportioning  of  benefits  to  services.'  if  not,  and  if  it 
has  taken  so  long  to  get  not  much  further  than  this 
on  the  way  to  the  "  limit  of  evolution,"  even  with  a 
little  Government  interference  in  recent  years  in 
behalf  of  the  less  fortunate  class,  it  would  seem  that 


394  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

a  little  more  interference  nnight  hasten  our  pace,  and 
help  us  to  approach  nearer  to  the  right  apportionment 
of  reward  to  work,  or  of  benefits  to  services. 

Further,  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  the  State 
interference  of  recent  years  was  just,  as  well  as  neces- 
sary. Because,  for  a  long  time  the  State  had  inter- 
fered on  the  other  side,  on  the  side  of  the  masters 
against  the  workmen.  Moreover  it  is  not  difficult  to 
deduce  the  necessity  for  State  interference  from  Mr. 
Spencer's  own  fundamental  principles.  According 
to  him  protection  to  life  is  necessary ;  from  which 
follow  Factory  Acts  and  Government  inspectors  ;  the 
former  containing  regulations  for  the  protection  of 
life  and  health  which  had  been  previously  endangered, 
through  the  master's  selfishness  and  cupidity,  and 
where  his  self-interest  could  not  be  depended  upon 
to  take  proper  precautions  voluntarily.  The  inspector 
is  himself  in  fact,  as  Prof.  Jevons  says,  a  necessary 
product  of  social  evolution  and  the  division  of  labour. 
There  arose  a  distinct  need  of  him,  and  the  only 
question  was  whether  he  should  be  appointed  by  the 
Government,  or  chosen  from  a  body  of  local  experts, 
less  likely  to  be  efficient  and  impartial. 

And  then  we  should  consider  what  would  have 
been  the  probable  consequences  had  there  been  no 
interferences,  had  the  principle  of  laissez-faire  been 
worked  out  absolutely  and  unmitigatedly.  We 
should  have  had  a  proletariate  of  servile  workers, 
degraded  in  physique,  in  mind,  in  morals  ;  mothers 
working  in  mines  and  factories,  their  sickly  children 
dying  without  a  mother's  care,  or  surviving  with 
enfeebled    frames  ;     other    children     ignorant     and 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  395 

savage,  worked  to  death  or  growing  up  savages  ;  the 
whole  labouring  population  turned  into  mere  human 
plant  and  instruments  to  make  the  fortunes  of 
masters,  constantly  becoming  more  insolent  and 
inhuman  from  impunity.  We  should  have  had  the 
"slave  gangs"  of  the  Roman  Republic  repeated, 
only  that  the  slaves  would  have  been  the  country- 
men of  their  masters,  neither  conquered  in  battle 
nor  born  in  slavery.  We  should  have  had  a  caste 
of  servile  labourers  working  for  the  capitalist's 
fortunes  as  well  as  for  the  general  convenience. 
That  is  a  deducible  consequence,  had  the  system 
continued  in  its  strictness  and  the  hands  submitted. 
But  they  probably  would  not  have  submitted  ;  had 
not  the  Government  interfered  before  their  physique 
had  been  destroyed,  and  their  spirit  broken,  they 
would  have  rebelled  against  their  masters,  and  if 
necessary  against  the  State,  putting  all  to  hazard. 
They  had  leaders  at  the  time  of  the  Chartist  ac;ita- 
tion,  who  would  have  appeared  earlier  had  the  laissea- 
faire  system  gone  on  ;  they  would  liave  counselled 
the  operatives  to  try  extreme  courses,  and  the  counsel 
would  in  all  probability  have  been  followed,  because 
Englishmen  have  a  sense  of  justice  and  a  latent  dis- 
position to  stand  up  for  their  rights  ;  so  that  on  all  the 
grounds  of  humanity,  justice  and  prudence,  Govern- 
mental interference  was  imperatively  called  for,  and 
the  Government  alone  could  stop  the  evils  which  it 
was  shown  by  experience  could  not  be  left  to  self- 
interest,  however  enlightened.  Social  evolution  left  to 
itself,  unregulated  by  Law,  takes  too  long  to  bring 
assuagement  to  the  existing  social  sufferings.     Mean- 


395  SOCIALISM    NEW   AND   OLD. 

while  the  existing  generation  dies,  having  been 
sacrificed.  Moreover,  social  evolution  uncontrolled 
leads  as  likely  as  not,  judging  from  history,  to  social 
dissolution,  to  a  social  Serbonian  bog  of  anarchy, 
instead  of  the  happy  and  peaceful  social  millennium 
where  men  "exchange  specific  reciprocities  of  aid 
under  agreement,  supplemented  and  completed  by 
exchange  of  services  beyond  agreement."^ 

Further,  it  is  a  consequence  from  Mr.  Spencer's 
"  L,aw  of  Equal  Freedom,"  as  Professor  Sidgwick 
affirms,  that  there  should  be  interference  of  the  State 
to  produce  greater  equalities  of  opportunity,  without 
which  the  law  of  Equal  Freedom  is  of  little  use  to 
us.  That  law  is  that  "  every  man  has  freedom 
to  do  all  that  he  wills,  provided  that  he  infringes 
not  the  equal  freedom  of  any  other  man."  But 
what  is  the  good  of  such  freedom,  when  the 
monopoly  of  others,  who  have  all  the  land, 
all  the  places,  all  the  capital,  all  the  credit,  all 
the  means  of  getting  a  chance  of  any  of  these, 
prevents  its  exercise?  To  make  this  law  a  Magna 
Charta  for  the  human  race  requires,  for  the  people  of 
these  countries  at  least,  a  certain  amount  of  Govern- 
ment interference  and  of  Government  legislation,  in 
addition  to  the  voluntary  virtues  of  individuals. 
There  is  no  real  freedom,  any  more  than  equality,  or 
even  equality  of  opportunity  in  our  modern  com- 
munities for  the  propertyless,  and  such  must  either 
be  helped  by  the  community,  or  remain  slaves,  or 
pariahs,  or  obtain  a  living  by  dishonest  or  infamous 
courses,  and  it  is  better  that  they  should  be  helped 

*  "  Data  of  Ethics,''  p.  149. 


PRACTICABLE  STATE   SOCIALISM.  397 

by  the  State  when  young,  by  getting  education  at  least, 
which  will  give  them  a  chance  of  a  career,  or  of  getting 
an  honest  livelihood. 

As  to  the  still  greater  interferences  of  the  Govern- 
ment involved  in  the  undertaking  of  certain 
industries,  this  undoubtedly  is  a  course  that  should 
be  entered  upon  with  the  greatest  caution, — slowly, 
tentatively,  and  but  a  little  at  a  time  ;  that  should 
not  be  further  adventured  upon — until  the  light  of  ex- 
perience has  been  gained,  that  is,  until  we  have  full 
experience,  and  until  that  experience  has  been  fully 
and  rightly  interpreted,  which,  as  Professor  Jevons 
says,  is  the  great  difficulty.  It  is  difficult  to  read  the 
results  of  experience,  from  which  diverse  conclusions 
may  be  and  commonly  are  drawn,  and  which  only 
the  mind  most  capable  and  most  conversant 
with  the  special  matter  can  be  depended  on  to 
rightly  read.  For  these  and  other  reasons  before 
adverted  to,  the  State  will  not  lightly  undertake 
the  management  of  any  branch  of  industry  already 
established.  For  still  stronger  reasons  it  will  not 
undertake  the  initiation  or  creation  of  any  industries. 
Nevertheless,  this  docs  not  apply  to  certain  kinds  of 
business,  those  chiefly  that  have  been  or  may  be  turned 
into  monopolies,  or  are  likely  to  be  dangerous  and 
hurtful  to  the  public  interest.  At  the  lowest  great 
trading  corporations  or  combinations  require  exten- 
sive regulations  in  the  public  interest ;  if  they  abuse 
their  powers  for  selfish  purposes,  management  by  the 
State,  which  has  no  interest  except  that  of  the 
public,  may  be  necessary. 

But  the  end  of  these  things  is  Socialism,  according 

20 


398  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

to  Mr.  Spencer,  Yes,  no  doubt.  Still  there  is  no 
necessity  either  to  go  to  the  end  full  and  complete,  or 
to  be  in  a  hurry.  But  we  are  told  the  momentum  will 
surely  carry  us  to  the  end  :  "  the  changes  made,  the 
changes  in  progress,  and  the  changes  urged,  will 
carr}-  us  not  only  to  State-ownership  of  land  and 
dwellings,  and  means  of  communication  ....  but 
towards  State-usurpation  of  all  industries  *  .  .  .  .  And 
so  will  be  brought  about  the  desired  ideal  of  the 
Socialists."  ^  I  reply,  we  need  not  go  to  the  end  with- 
out a  clear  view  of  the  advantages  to  be  gained.  The 
"  changes  urged  "  have  to  be  first  carried  ;  nothing 
compels  us  to  go  on  if  we  don't  like  the  prospect,  if 
we  can't  discern  the  general  advantages,  if  we  see 
greater  disadvantages  ;  still  more  if  we  are  stopped  by 
impracticabilities  or  impossibilities.  We  may  go  on, 
stop  at  any  point,  go  quicker  ;  all  these  courses  are 
possible.  There  is  no  fatality  in  the  matter :  no 
necessary  all-compelling  momentum  irrespective  of 
the  general  volition.  Even  if  we  should  go  on  to  the 
end,  it  may  be  sufficiently  far  off  to  comply  with  the 
conditions  of  evolution,  which,  as  Mr.  Spencer  tells  us 
elsewhere,  only  demands  long  enough  time  to  effect 
any  change,  however  vast. 

The  terror  is,  that  when  the  end  does  come,  we 
shall  be  governed  by  an  army  of  officials  who  will 
destroy  all  liberty.  It  will  be  a  reign  of  slavery  worse 
than  the  Egj-ptian.  There  will  be  the  Inspector, 
with  workmasters,  and  taskmasters.  And  why  ? 
Because  "all  Socialism  is  slavery."     Now,  as  before 

"  "The  Man  versus  the  State,"  p.  39. 
*  Ibid.  p.  39- 


PRACTICABLE   STATE   SOCIALISM.  399 

said,  even  if  this  were  true  it  would  still  be  a  question 
of  the  comparison  of  the  degree  of  slavery  under  the 
present  system,  with  that  under  Socialism  full-blown. 
The  officials  at  any  rate  would  not  be  enslaved  ; 
they  would  be  the  enslavers,  the  rulers  ;  the  rest 
would  be  the  slaves  ;  but  at  present  the  majority  of 
workers  are  enslaved  largely  by  their  work  and  the 
necessity  of  working.  The  free  are  those  who 
can  live  without  work,  or  those  who  direct  work, 
the  landlord,  the  rentier,  the  capitalist.  The  officials 
under  Socialism  would  be  the  most  capable  in  the 
nation.  And  the  question  arises  whether  it  would 
not  be  better  to  have  capacity  at  the  head  directing 
than  capital,  which,  after  being  gathered  as  often  by 
cupidity  and  astuteness  as  by  ability  and  saving,  is 
passed  on  so  often  to  incapacity  by  inheritance.  If 
the  hierarchical  principle  is  to  govern  future  society,  a 
hierarchy  according  to  capacity  is  better  than  any 
other,  as  the  wise  of  all  times,  from  Plato  to  St. 
Simon  and  Carlyle,  have  asserted.  It  is  the  "  eternal 
privilege  of  the  foolish  to  be  ruled  by  the  wise,"  as 
the  latter  has  written  ;  and  society  will  always  be 
restless  and  in  unstable  equilibrium,  until  capacity, 
as  such,  has  its  due  influence  in  the  State,  the 
absence  of  which,  more  than  the  poverty  of  the 
poor,  is  the  cause  of  the  present  general  unrest.  At 
pres'^nt  money  rules  in  ail  directions.  It  may  be 
in  the  hands  of  capacity,  in  which  case  it  has  too 
much  power  ;  it  may  be  in  the  hands  of  incajiacity,  in 
which  case  it  has  unnatural  power.  Under  full  State 
Socialism  ability  would  at  least  be  searched  for 
amongst  all,  and  when   found  would  be  at  least  as 


400  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

likely  as  either  wealth  or  privilege  to  have  virtue 
conjoined  with  it.  The  officials,  therefore,  might 
not  reduce  all  the  rest  to  slavery  ;  even  if  they  did 
they  would  have  a  better  right  to  do  so  than  any 
other  powers.  They  could  not,  at  any  rate,  hand  us 
over  to  the  rule  of  their  sons,  as  there  would  be  no 
hereditary  succession  to  power.  If  there  must  be 
a  governing  class,  this  would  be  the  fairest  sort,  as 
well  as  the  most  natural,  and  the  most  beneficent  for 
all. 

Thus  it  would  still  be  a  question  of  the  comparison 
of  evils,  even  if  we  were  obliged  to  go  on  to  the  end. 
But,  as  already  stated,  there  would  be  no  necessity  for 
so  doing,  simply  because  we  started  on  the  road  in 
order  to  get  some  of  the  foreseen  advantages  or  to 
escape  from  some  present  evils.  We  want  the  prin- 
ciple introduced  of  giving  chances  to  capacity  as  a 
counterpoise  to  the  great  power  of  capital  and  in- 
herited wealth  or  privilege,  a  third  power  to  supple- 
ment and  to  qualify  these,  but  not  to  supersede 
them.  We  want  this  because  of  its  justice,  its 
advantages  from  an  economic  point  of  view,  and 
finally  because  of  its  necessity.  And  the  only  way 
in  which  the  third  power  that  is  without  capital  can  be 
evoked  is  by  the  State  searching  for  and  educating 
destitute  capacity,  as  also  by  extending  the  functions 
of  the  State  in  the  industrial  sphere,  in  order  to 
provide  additional  places  for  this  educated  ability. 
The  first  half  of  this  can  indeed  be  done  by  the 
voluntary  effort  of  rich  men  by  gifts  and  bequests  ;  the 
second  can  only  be  done  by  the  State  itself. 


CHAPTER,  XIII. 

ON  THE  SUPPOSED   SPONTANEOUS    TENDENCIES  TO 

SOCIALISM. 

There  are  others  besides  Herbert  Spencer  who 
discern  Sociah'sm  as  the  end  or  logical  outcome  of 
certain  tendencies  wliich  now  prevail  or  which  are 
thought  to  prevail,  and  as  all  prophecies  in  modern 
times  must  be  based  on  what  we  know  of  existing  ten- 
dencies, supplemented  by  what  history  tells  us  of  the 
course  of  similar  tendencies  in  the  past,  it  is  a  matter 
of  importance  to  know  how  far  such  tendencies  do 
really  exist,  and  if  they  do,  to  gauge,  if  possible,  their 
probable  momentum,  and  to  judge  whether  they  are 
likely  to  be  permanent  or  passing,  because  confident 
prophecies  have  been  hazarded  on  the  strength  of 
certain  tendencies,  while  at  the  very  moment  of  the 
prophecy  a  counter-tendency  was  setting  in.' 

The  alleged  tendencies  to  Socialism  are  chiefly 
two  :  the  tendency  of  the  State  to  widen  its  functions, 
especially  in  the  economic  sphere ;  and  the  tendency 

'  As  in  the  case  of  De  Tocqueville's  celebrated  prophecy  that 
nothing  could  stop  the  tide  setting  towards  democracy  and  the 
equality  of  conditions  :  although  a  counter-tide  towards  a  new 
inequality  had  already  set  in,  with  as  a  consecjuence  of  it  the 
rise  of  a  new  aristocracy  or  plutocracy  in  all  Western  Europe. 


402  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

to  increased  concentration  of  wealth.  As  to  the 
former  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  modern  State  has 
a  tendency  to  widen  the  range  of  its  activity  in 
the  economic  sphere,  as  also  in  the  interests  of 
culture,  and  this  tendency  is  to  a  certain  extent 
Socialistic.  The  tendency  exists ;  it  has  increased 
in  England  during  the  present  century,  especially 
since  the  passing  of  the  first  Factory  Acts  in  1844. 
It  has  increased  especially  in  the  legislative  spheie, 
and  as  far  as  the  regulation  of  industry  is  con- 
cerned ;  it  will  increase  further  in  the  interests  of  the 
health,  the  happiness,  and  the  morals  of  the  working 
class ;  so  in  like  manner  the  tendency  to  assume 
industrial  functions  on  the  part  of  the  central  or  the 
local  government  will  increase.  Nevertheless  this 
tendency  will  not  increase  fast  nor  go  far,  unless  a 
second  tendency  which  we  have  now  particularly  to 
consider  should  develop  and  show  itself  socially 
mischievous. 

The  second  tendency  is  that  towards  the  increased 
massing  together  or  concentration  of  capital  which  has 
been  going  on  all  through  this  century,  at  first  as  a 
consequence  of  the  industrial  revolution  and  the  needs 
of  the  large  scale  of  production,  then  by  the  under- 
taking of  ever  larger  enterprises  requiring  vast  sums 
of  capital,  as  in  the  making  and  working  of  railways  :  a 
tendency  which  first  showed  itself  in  the  instance  of 
the  great  individual  capitalist,  then  in  the  company  or 
union  of  capitalists,  and  lastly,  within  the  past  few 
years,  in  the  syndicate  or  union  of  companies.  This 
second  tendency  does  exist ;  it  is  likewise  an  increas- 
ing tendency,  and  under  certain  circumstances  of  abuse 


THE   SUPPOSED   TENDENCIES   TO   SOCIALISM.   403 

into  which  it  would  be  tempted  to  fall,  it  might  lead 
to  Socialism,  not  because  of  its  affinities,  since  it  is 
the  very  opposite  of  Socialism,  but  by  way  of 
repulsion  ;  it  might  lead  to  excessive  government 
regulation,  or  to  the  superseding  of  the  syndicates  by 
government  management  in  the  interest  of  the  public. 

But  before  considering  the  circumstances  which 
might  lead  to  such  State  Socialism,  it  is  necessary  to 
clear  away  a  mistake  as  to  the  concentration  of  capital, 
to  point  out  a  mistaken  tendency,  which,  if  it  really 
did  exist,  would  probably  lead  to  Socialism  by  a  far 
shorter  road:  the  mistake  that  the  increasing  concen- 
tration of  capital,  which  is  an  undoubted  fact,  is  an 
increasing  concentration  or  accumulation  in  ever  fewer 
individual  hands  ;  a  mistake  made  conspicuously  by 
Karl  Marx,  which  was  endorsed  by  Cairnes  and 
Fawcett,  and  which  lies  at  the  bottom  of  all  their 
desires  to  change  the  present  industrial  organization 
by  substituting  for  it  universal  Collectivism,  as  Marx 
would  wish,  or  co-operative  production,  as  the  other 
two  prefer. 

According  to  Karl  Marx,  Socialism  will  come  when 
the  process  of  evolution  has  resulted  in  a  few  colossal 
capitalists  face  to  face  with  millions  of  exploited  and 
expropriated  proletarians,  including  many  smaller 
capitalists  who  have  been  undersold  and  driven  into 
the  ranks  of  the  proletariate.  "  When  the  constantly 
diminishing  number  of  the  magnates  of  capital  has 
resulted  in  a  few  gigantic  ones  with  a  growing  mass 
of  misery,  oppression,  slavery,  degradation,  and 
exploitation;"  and  when,  in  addition,  "  the  work- 
ing class,  increased  in  numbers,  organized,  discii)lined, 


404  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

and  united  by  the  very  mechanism  of  the  process  of 
capitaHst  production  itself,  is  animated  with  a  spirit  of 
revolt,"  then,  he  declares,  "  the  knell  of  capitalist 
property  will  sound,  the  expropriators  will  be  ex- 
propriated." But  we  can  now  see  that  Marx  mistook 
the  course  of  the  industrial  evolution,  and  that  he  pro- 
phesied without  due  allowance  for  other  facts  and 
forces  that  might  check,  or  cross,  or  turn  the  tendency 
he  thought  he  had  divined. 

According  to  Cairnes  also,  as  we  have  seen,  the 
tendency  is  to  "  an  increased  inequality  in  distribution. 
The  rich  will  grow  richer,  the  poor,  at  least  relatively, 
poorer."  And  he  recommends  to  the  latter  co- 
operative production  as  their  sole  hope.  Now  Cairnes' 
mistake  was  the  less  excusable,  as  he  wrote  at  a  time 
(1874)  when  the  tendency  to  great  individual  accumu- 
lation had  received  a  check,  and  there  were  statistics 
available  that  might  have  tested  his  deduction.  And 
in  fact  all  that  his  argument  really  proves  is  that  the 
class  receiving  interest  (and  occasionally  wages  of 
management,  in  addition  to  interest)  tends  to  get  a 
larger  part  of  the  produce  than  the  class  that  lives  by 
hired  wages,  or,  as  he  puts  it,  that  the  wages  fund 
tends  to  lag  behind  the  other  parts  into  which  capital 
is  divided.  This  last,  if  true,  would  still  be  a  sufficiently 
serious  thing,  though  Mr.  Gififen,  the  eminent  statis- 
tician, denies  its  truth  ;  but  true  or  not,  it  is  a  quite 
different  thing  from  the  increasing  concentration  of 
wealth  in  individual  hands,  which  Cairnes  appears, 
in  the  above  quotations,  to  ihink  implied  in  it: 
that  one  class,  and  a  large  class,  tends  to  get  a  some- 
what larger  share  than  another,  and  a  much  larger 


THE   SUPPOSED   TENDENCIES   TO   SOCIALISM.   405 

class,  would  not  be  a  desirable  thing  if  it  could  be 
prevented  :  it  would  scarcely  be  an  argument  for  a 
total  change  in  our  industrial  system,  as  desired  by 
Cairnes,  still  less  for  the  further  social  and  political 
changes  desired  by  advanced  Socialists. 

According  to  Comte  also  (writing  in  1850)  the 
tendency  was  to  the  greater  concentration  of  capital 
in  the  hands  of  individual  capitalists  ;  he  thought  the 
tendency  a  good  one  ;  far  from  desiring  to  thwart  it  by 
human  volitions,  he  affirmed  that  the  tendency  would 
necessarily  and  beneficially  lead  to  a  more  pronounced 
Capitalism  instead  of  to  Socialism,  and  with  the 
capitalists  ruling  in  the  political  as  well  as  the 
industrial  sphere  ; — so  differently  did  the  philosophers 
forecast  the  future  from  the  same  assumed  tendency. 

Now  if  the  tendency  were  really  to  the  concentra- 
tion of  capital  in  ever  fewer  hands,  with  a  mighty 
mass  of  ill-paid  and  discontented  workers,  and  with 
no  great  middle  class  lying  between,  then  indeed  the 
transition  to  Socialism  more  or  less  complete  would 
be  much  easier  to  accomplish,  and  in  some  shape  it 
would  probably  come  ;  at  least  it  would  be  easier  to 
expropriate  a  comparative  few  ;  it  would  be  almost  im- 
possible to  prevent  it,  the  forces  of  might  and  justice 
added  to  envy  being  adverse,  and  with  no  mediating 
middle  class.  Both  might  and  morality  would  be  on 
the  side  of  the  labouring  class,  and  the  fall  of  such  a 
plutocracy  might  be  safely  prophesied.  But  M  irx 
happily  was  mistaken  as  to  the  tendency.  The  ten- 
dency is  not  to  the  greater  and  greater  fortunes  of 
individual  capitalists.  That  tendency  did  however, 
exist  during  and  for  a  certain  time  after  the  industrial 


406  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

revolution,  especially  in  England  so  long  as  she  had  a 
comparative  monopoly  of  the  continental  as  well  as 
other  foreign  markets.  And  the  tendency  was  so 
marked,  it  lasted  so  long,  and  some  men  became  so  rich, 
that  Marx  may  be  excused  for  generalizing  too  hastily 
from  it,  as  undoubtedly  he  did.  That  tendency  has 
now  almost  ceased  in  England,  from  increased  com- 
petition, from  the  want  of  the  old  opportunities,  from 
increased  wages,  from  the  spread  of  companies,  and 
other  causes ;  and  though  it  did  exist  at  the  time 
Comte  wrote,  according  to  M.  Leroy-Beaulieu  it  has 
ceased  in  France,  the  law  moreover  having  there  con- 
siderably assisted  to  check  it  by  the  equal  partition 
of  inheritances  amongst  the  children. 

The  real  tendency  at  present  is  to  the  greater 
massing  together  of  separate  portions  of  capital 
owned  by  many  capitalists,  small,  great,  and  of 
moderate  dimensions  ;  to  the  concentration  of  capital 
certainly,  but  not  to  its  concentration  in  sinele  hands  : 
to  the  union  of  capitals  for  a  common  purpose,  while 
still  separately  owned.  The  tendency  is  to  the  crea- 
tion of  companies  and  unions  of  companies  ;  to  the 
transformation  of  the  larger  businesses  into  companies 
with  larger  capital,  the  original  owner  retaining  a 
large  portion  of  the  shares,  and  possibly  a  large  in- 
fluence in  the  management,  if  the  business  is  in  a 
sound  condition.  The  tendency  is  also  to  give 
busmess  ability  without  capital  chances  of  becoming 
rich  through  the  management  of  such  large  concerns, 
and  greatly  to  increase  the  number  of  directors  of 
industry  who,  without  being  large  capitalists,  may  in 
time  become  considerable  capitalists. 


THE    SUrPOSED   TENDENCIES   TO   SOCIALISM.   407 

II. 

The  tendency  to  the  concentration  of  capital,  then, 
does  exist  as  a  fact,  and  Socialism  might  conceivably 
come  as  the  end  of  the  tendency  ;  only  it  will  not 
come  as  the  result  of  its  concentration  in  the  hands 
of  a  few  mammoth  millionaires,  for  the  tendency  is 
not  towards  such  in  any  country  save  the  United 
States,  and  even  there  the  tendency  is  not  marked, 
or  it  only  shows  itself  in  comparatively  few  in- 
stances. It  might  conceivably  come  as  the  result 
of  a  universal  syndicate  and  monopolistic  regime, 
which,  if  the  monopolists  greatly  abused  their  posi- 
tion, might  necessitate  the  State  either  to  regulate 
stringently  or  itself  to  occupy  and  undertake  those 
industries  whose  abuses  proved  incorrigible.  But  if  a 
partial  Socialism  came  in  this  way,  it  would  give  the 
present  system  a  much  longer  lease  of  life,  both  be- 
cause the  process  of  monopolistic  occupation  will 
probably  be  slow,  and  because  the  capitalists  of  a  given 
country  will  not  be,  as  Marx  prognosticated,  a  small 
number,  but  hundreds  of  thousands,  probably  millions, 
who  would  oppose  a  very  powerful  resistance  to  State 
occupation  of  a  given  industry,  unless  where  such 
occupation  was  manifestly  beneficial  for  the  great 
majority. 

The  great  multitude  interested,  the  great  number 
of  owners  of  capital,  whether  in  large  or  small  por- 
tions, including  the  more  intelligent  artisans,  would 
certainly  make  it  difficult  or  imj)ossible  to  expropriate 
them,  would  indefinitely  delay  the  process,  and  only 
those  industries  could  be  taken  over  by  the  Slate  the 


408  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD, 

functions  of  which  were  discharged  to  the  detriment 
of  the  community. 

If  indeed  every  province  of  production,  distribution, 
and  transport  were  occupied  by  syndicates  and 
monopolies  ;  if  they  abused  the  natural  strength  of 
the  monopolist's  position  by  raising  prices  to  the  ut- 
most, and  especially  prices  of  the  prime  necessaries, 
while  at  the  same  time  trying  to  reduce  wages  to  the 
lowest  point;  if,  in  short,  they  were  animated  solely 
by  egoism,  and  without  conscience,  or  humanity,  or 
public  spirit,  the  public  outside  the  industrial  world, 
the  large  and  intelligent  middle  class  outside  the 
industrial  class,  would  probably  side  with  the  labouring 
class  in  pressing  on  the  Government  the  suppression 
of  the  worst  of  them  and  the  undertaking  of  their 
functions. 

But,  in  the  first  place,  the  universal  occupation  of 
the  industrial  field  by  monopolies,  and  the  extinction 
of  competition,  is  very  far  off;  in  the  second  place, 
where  any  large  combinations  show  too  much  cor- 
porate selfishness  they  can  be  pulled  up  by  State 
supervision,  and  in  certain  cases  great  potential  com- 
binations can  be  nipped  in  the  bud,  their  formation 
can  be  prevented  by  the  State  refusing  permission  to 
the  companies  to  unite  as  "  contrary  to  public  policy  " 
or  to  public  interest ;  because  a  company  is,  in  a  cer- 
tain sense,  a  creation  of  the  State,  as  is  likewise  a 
Union,  and  neither  should  exist,  or  receive  permission 
of  the  State  to  come  into  being,  if  deemed  likely 
to  prove  inimical  to  the  general  weal,  so  that  the 
State  could  always  check  early  or  altogether  the  for- 
mation of  possibly  objectionable  unions.     Where,  as 


THE   SUPrOSED   TENDENCIES   TO  SOCFALISM.  409 

in  a  case  like  that  of  railways,  they  were  necessary, 
it  would  not  be  desirable  to  prevent  their  formation  ; 
they  could  always  be  checked  if  they  abused  their 
position,  and  conditions  should  always  be  attached  to 
the  concession  of  powers  and  privileges  to  them.  It  is, 
therefore,  extremely  unlikely  that  the  industrial  field 
will  ever  be  occupied  by  a  few  colossal  and  irrespon- 
sible syndicates,  or  that  the  State  will  be  driven  to 
substitute  itself  for  them,  save  possibly  in  a  very  few 
cases. 

Lastly,  the  Syndicates  would  have  to  be  devoid 
not  only  of  conscience,  humanity,  public  spirit,  but 
also,  what  we  can  less  easily  suppose  to  be  absent, 
common  sense  and  prudence,  if  they  tried  to  extort 
the  highest  prices  in  cases  of  necessaries  supposed 
to  be  controlled  by  them,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  to 
reduce  wages  to  the  lowest  point,  on  the  ground  that 
labourers  had  no  alternative  work  ;  such  would  be 
dangerous  policy  for  themselves,  though  no  doubt 
there  would  bs  a  temptation  to  it  which  might  prove 
too  great  for  some  employers.  Only  in  such  a  case 
of  abuse  would  the  State  be  called  upon  to  interfere 
and  either  strictly  regulate  or  itself  undertake  the 
function  abused. 

Jiut  the  result  of  these  several  considerations  is  to 
put  off  universal  Socialism  indefinitely  as  a  natural 
evolution, and  points  merely  to  the  introduction  of  such 
partial  applications  of  State  Socialism  as  peremptory 
public  exigence  may  require,  in  those  cases  where  a 
social  function  could  not  be  entrusted  to  private 
enterprise,  whether  monopolistic  or  competitive. 


410  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND   OLD. 

IIL 

There   is   also   the    tendency   on   the   part    of  the 
labourers   to    co-operative    effort,    from  which   some 
people  expect  the  elevation  of  the  labourers  and  the 
composing  of  the  quarrel  between  capital  and  labour 
by  merging  the  two  ;  and  this  tendency  does  certainly 
exist ;  it  is,  moreover,  in  the  direction  of  Socialism  in 
the  widest  sense  of  the  word  ;  only  it  is  a  much  slower 
tendency,  and  a  smaller  one,  more  especially  in  the 
field   of  production,  as   already  stated.     Of  the  two 
tendencies,  one  to  co-operation  on  the  part  of  labour, 
and  one  to  the  spread  and  consolidation  of  companies 
on  the  part  of  capital,  the  former  will  not  develop 
fast  enough.     The  company  will  develop  much  faster, 
and  Socialism  might  much  sooner  come  as  the  term 
of  that  evolution  unchecked  than  through  co-opera- 
tion.    But  the  one  might  be  restrained  by  the  State ; 
the  other  might  be  quickened  ;  the  State  might  be- 
come the  working  man's  bank,  to  some  extent,  as  it 
has  been   the  creditor  of  the  farmer  in   Ireland ;   it 
might  lend  at  market  rate,  say  at  3  or  3^  per  cent,  to 
such  associations  of  workers  as  had  saved  a  moiety  of 
capital,  if  they  could  show  the  likelihood  of  success 
in  their  projected  enterprise.     But  as  this  point  has 
already  been  considered,  it  is  not  necessary  to  enlarge 
on  it  here  any  further  than  to  say  that  the  working 
classes,  now  that  they  have    got   so   much  political 
power,    may  not    improbably  press   for  some    State 
assistance  to  increase  the  number  of  owners  of  capital, 
especially  as  the  results  of  unaided   efforts  must  be 
extremely  small  and  slow. 


THE   SUPPOSED   TENDENCIES   TO   SOCIALISM.   4 II 

What  political  action  to  improve  their  economical 
position  they  may  take  cannot  be  precisely  stated. 
It  is  by  no  means  likely  that  they  will  ever  combine  to 
demand  a  maximum  working  day  in  England.  They 
will  not  ask  the  help  of  the  State  for  the  purpose  ;  nor 
will  they,  with  the  Socialists,  ask  it  to  fix  a  minimum 
of  wages,  which  they  can  if  they  choose  themselves 
fix  through  Trades  Unions.  They  may  ask  for  the 
nationalization  of  the  land  ;  though  it  is  not  clear, 
if  landlords  were  compensated,  what  they  would  gain 
by  it  beyond  the  creation  of  small  farmers,  the  granting 
of  allotments  to  agricultural  or  other  labourers,  as  an 
occupation  for  slack  times  ;  all  of  which  may  be 
secured  otherwise :  so  that  it  is  not  easy  to  forecast 
the  resultant  line  of  action  of  the  working  classes, 
more  especially  as  the  interests  of  the  skilled  and 
unskilled  labourers  are  not  always  identical,  however 
the  desires  for  higher  wages  and  fewer  hours  may  be 
common  to  both. 

IV. 

Thus  far  as  to  the  existing  tendencies.  As  to  the 
final  goal,  it  is  very  difficult  to  say  what  it  will  be,  or 
what  the  end  in  which  society  will  rest  (if,  indeed,  it 
ever  attains  to  rest  other  than  provisional  equili- 
brium). And  it  is  difficult  because  of  the  new  and 
unforeseen  factors  that  arise  in  the  course  of  an  ever- 
expanding  evolution  which  might  upset  oui  c.ilcula- 
tions  ;  new  factors,  industrial,  social,  moral,  religious  ; 
new  physical  discoveries,  like  steam  or  electricity, 
that  might  revolutionize  industry ;  new  moral  f)r 
religious  forces  that  might  revolutionize  manners,  and 


412  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD, 

the  scheme  of  hfe,  and  with  it  indirectly  the  distribu- 
tion of  wealth ;  and  great  physical  discoveries  and 
inventions  affecting  industry,  we  may  indeed  certainly 
look  for  as  in  the  normal  course  of  evolution. 

Society  may  indeed  come  to  the  collective  owner- 
ship of  land  and  capital,  but  it  will  not  be  for  a  long 
time  ;  it  may  come  to  equah'ty  of  material  goods,  but 
it  will  be  at  a  time  still  more  remote.  On  the  othei 
hand,  the  system  of  private  property  and  freedom  of 
contract  may  last  indefinitely  or  for  ever;  but  if  it 
does,  we  may  safely  prophesy  that  it  will  be  brought 
more  in  accordance  with  reason,  justice,  and  the 
general  good,  and,  though  there  be  never  equality  of 
property,  there  will  be  a  nearer  approach  to  equality 
of  opportunities,  and  a  somewhat  nearer  approxima- 
tion of  the  existing  great  extremes  of  fortune. 

Eminent  writers  during  the  past  hundred  years 
have  prophesied  far  more  confidently  as  to  the  future : 
Karl  Marx,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  concentration 
of  capital  in  the  hands  of  a  few  would  lead,  naturally, 
necessarily,  and  at  no  distant  date,  to  their  expropria- 
tion, and  to  a  Collectivist  regime  ;  and  De  Tocque- 
ville,  that  society  was  being  borne  invincibly  to  a  state 
of  general  equality  of  conditions,  where  the  State 
would  continually  become  more  powerful.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  sociologists,  who,  if  their  science  were 
all  that  its  name  implies,  should  be  able  to  forecast  the 
future,  "to  look  into  the  seeds  of  time  and  say  which 
grains  would  grow  and  which  would  not,"  predict  very 
differently  :  Comte,  that  the  concentration  of  capital  in 
ever  fewer  hands  would  and  should  lead  definitively, 
to  the  political  rule  of  the  capitalists,  tempered  by  the 


THE   SUPPOSED   TENDENCIES   TO   SOCIALISM    413 

counsel  of  positive  philosophers,  and  that  within  a 
short  space  of  time ;  while  Herbert  Spencer,  as  we 
have  already  seen,  filled  with  the  doctrine  of  evolution, 
and  impressed  with  the  lesson  it  teaches  as  to  the 
length  of  time  required  for  changes  for  the  better, 
discerns  at "  the  limits  of  evolution,"  countless  genera- 
tions hence,  as  goal,  a  system  of  property  and 
contract,  purified  and  supplemented  by  voluntary 
benevolence,  with  the  authority  of  the  State  reduced 
to  a  minimum. 

In  like  manner  Mill  prophesied  ;  but  his  conclusion 
was  different.  He  prophesied  that  co-operative  pro- 
duction, "  sooner  than  people  in  general  imagined," 
would  transform  society  by  superseding  the  capitalist 
employer  ;  and  with  respect  to  the  two  exactly  oppo- 
site prophecies  of  Mill  and  Comte,  all  that  need  be 
said  is  that  neither  of  them  has  been  as  yet  fulfilled. 
Co-operative  production  has  not  advanced,  nor,  on 
the  other  hand,  has  the  capitalist  attained  supreme 
political  power,  though  of  the  two  perhaps  the  pro- 
phecy of  Comte  has  come  nearer  to  fulfilment. 

When  De  Tocqueville  wrote  his  remarkable  book 
on  "  Democracy  in  America,"  the  new  tendency  to 
inequality  had  not  shown  itself  in  America,  there  was 
great  equality  of  conditions,  and  there  was  likewise 
considerable  equality  of  conditions  in  France  as  a  con- 
sequence of  the  Revolution.  De  Tocqueville  gene- 
ralized from  what  he  then  saw.and  prophesied  a  further 
and  a  general  equality,  though  somewhat  prema- 
turely, because  a  tendency  to  a  prodigious  inequality 
was  setting  in  at  the  time  he  was  writing,  a  tendency 
first   manifested  in    England,  that   increased,  spread, 


414  SOCIALISM   NEW  AND  OLD. 

embraced  the  civilized  world,  that  was  followed  by 
a  new  social  conquest,  and  the  rise  of  a  new  and 
potent  monied  aristocracy.  It  grew  greater ;  and 
generalizing  from  this  tendency,  Karl  Marx  prophesied 
it  would  grow  still  greater  until  all  capital  was  concen- 
trated in  a  few  hands  :  the  capitalists  would  then  be 
expropriated,  and  Socialism  and  equality  would  come. 
But  Marx,  as  already  stated,  based  his  prophecy  on 
a  misread  tendency,  a  short  tendency  which  had 
spent  its  full  force  before  he  died,  just  as  De  Tocque- 
ville  based  his  prediction  on  a  supposed  tendency 
gathered  from  the  facts  of  a  generation  earlier. 
Both  were  wrong,  a  great  current  towards  inequality 
came,  especially  in  America,  after  De  Tocqueville 
wrote,  in  1835,  just  as  there  came  a  check  to  the 
concentration  of  capital  in  fewer  hands,  and  a  ten- 
dency to  its  dispersal,  before  Marx  died. 

Others  also  have  prophesied  in  our  century,  though 
without  pretending  to  base  their  predictions  on  the 
scientific  study  of  political  or  social  phenomena  :  St. 
Simon,  that  the  golden  age  was  in  the  future,  and 
that  society  would  reach  it  through  his  doctrine  ; 
Carlyle,  that  th6  abyss  lay  before  society,  unless  the 
Great  Man  appeared  to  save  it.  To  the  like  effect 
the  poet-laureate  also  speaks  :  "  Before  Earth  reach 
her  earthly  best  a  God  must  mingle  with  the  game." 

What  is  the  lesson  to  be  gathered  from  the 
prophets  and  writers  on  the  science  of  society  }  Not 
that  we  should  expect  an  early  and  radical  trans- 
formation of  society  ;  neither  the  supremacy  of  a 
few  capitalists,  nor  yet  their  early  expropriation  ; 
hardly  even  that  we  should  expect  the  coming  of  the 


THE  SUPPOSED   TENDENCIES   TO   SOCIALISM.   415 

semi-divine  man  of  Carlyle  and  Tennyson  to  set 
things  right.  The  chief  lesson  is  the  rashness  and 
exceeding  doubtfulness  of  specific  prophecies  which 
are  grounded  as  often  on  hopes  or  fears,  likes  or 
dislikes,  as  on  superior  insight.  The  prophets  are, 
however,  in  general  optimistic  ;  they  believe  in  pro- 
gress or  evolution  ;  and  they  believe  that  civilized 
society  is  progressing  to  something  better  than  the 
present  state,  though  they  differ  considerably  as  to 
what  constitutes  that  better.  I  share  this  faith  on 
the  whole  myself.  I  believe  that  society  is  in  move- 
ment as  part  of  an  inevitable  process  to  something 
better  in  the  end,  though  some  of  the  stages  to  it 
may  appear  to  be  really  w^orse  for  particular  gene- 
rations. I  believe  we  are  moving  towards  a  better, 
to  "  a  far-off  divine  event"  which  cannot  be  fully 
perceived  at  present ;  and  I  believe  that  the  road  to 
it  lies  through  something  better  than  the  present 
which  can  be  perceived.  To  get  to  this  better  will 
require  the  co-operative  efforts  and  volitions  of 
men,  especially  of  the  working  classes,  and  of  their 
leaders.  Social  thinkers  will  be  required  to  furnish 
light  and  guidance,  and  also,  it  may  be,  great  states- 
men filled  with  the  spirit  of  understanding  and  justice, 
and  with  regard  for  the  general  good.  There  will 
be  neither  miracle  wrought,  nor  sudden  social  trans- 
formation, which  would  be  a  miracle  in  order  to  last ; 
but  with  good  sense,  self-reliance,  and  persistence  on 
the  part  of  the  many,  assisted  by  the  light  and  help 
of  the  few,  and  with  better  disposititjns  on  the  part  of 
employers  of  labour,  a  considerable  advance  for  the 
whole  people,  and  especially  for  the  cause  of  labour, 


4l6  SOCIALISM   NEW   AND   OLD. 

might  be  made  during  the  present  generation  :  while 
with  these  same  conditions  as  permanent  facts,  the 
movement  for  social  reform,  if  not  the  sociaHstic 
movement,  will  advance  as  fast  as  is  desirable,  and 
will  realize  in  future  as  much  good  as  the  nature  and 
complexity  of  things  social  and  things  human  will 
allow. 


THE  END 


T 


D.  APPLETON  &   CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 

HE  ICE  AGE  IN  NORTH  AMERICA,  and  its 

Bearings  tipon  the  Antiquity  of  Man.  By  G.  Frederick 
Wright,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  F.  G.  S.  A.,  Professor  in  Oberlin  Theo- 
logical Seminary  ;  Assistant  on  the  United  States  Geological 
Survey.  With  an  Appendix  on  "  The  Probable  Cause  of  Gla- 
ciation,"  by  Warren  Upham,  F.  G.  S.  A.,  Assistant  on  the 
Geological  Surveys  of  New  Hampshire,  Minnesota,  and  the 
United  States.  With  147  Maps  and  Illustrations.  One  vol., 
8vo,  640  pages.     Cloth,  $5.00. 

The  writer  has  personally  been  over  a  large  part  of  the  field  containing  the  won- 
derful array  of  facts  of  which  he  is  now  permitted  to  write,  but  he  is  one  only  of  many 
investigators  who  have  been  busily  engaged  for  the  past  fifteen  years  (to  say  nothing 
of  what  had  been  previously  accomplished)  in  collecting  facts  concerning  the  Glaciai 
period  in  this  country.  His  endeavor  has  been  to  make  the  present  volume  a  fairly 
complete  digest  of  all  these  investigations. 

The  numerous  maps  accompanying  the  text  have  been  compiled  from  the  latest 
data.  The  illustrations  are  more  ample  than  have  ever  before  been  applied  to  the 
subject,  being  mostly  reproductiuns  of  photographs  taken  by  various  members  of  the 
United  States  Geological  Survey  in  the  course  of  the  past  ten  years,  many  of  them  by 
the  author  himselfl 


T 


HE  GREAT  ICE  AGE,  and  its  Relation  to  the 
Antiquity  of  Man.  By  James  Geikie,  F.  R.S.  E.,  of  H.  M. 
Geological  Survey  of  Scotland.  With  Maps  and  Illustrations. 
l2mo.     Cloth,  $2.50. 

A  systematic  account  of  the  Glacial  Epoch  in  England  and  Scotland,  with  special 
references  to  its  changes  of  climate. 


P 


RINCIPLES    OF   GEOIOGY;    or.  The  Modern 

Changes  of  the  Earth  and  its  Inhabitants,  considered  as  illus- 
trative of  Geology.  By  Sir  Chari.es  Lvki.i.,  Bart.  Illustrated 
with  Maps, '  Plates,  and  Woodcuts.  Two  vols.,  royal  8vo. 
Cloth,  $8.00. 

The  "  Principles  of  Geology  "  may  be  looked  upon  with  pride,  not  only  as  a  rcpre- 
lentative  of  Knglish  science,  but  as  without  a  rival  of  its  kind  anywhere.  GrowiiiR  in 
fullness  and  accuracy  with  the  growth  of  experience  and  observation  in  every  rcRion 
of  the  world,  the  work  I  as  incorporated  with  itself  each  established  discovery,  and  lia.s 
been  modified  by  every  hypothesis  of  value  which  h.is  been  brought  to  bear  upon,  or 
been  evolved  from,  the  most  recent  body  of  facts. 


New  York  :  D.  APPLETON  &  CO.,  i,  3.  &  5  Bond  Street. 


D.  APPLETON  &  CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


A 


NATURALIST'S  RAMBLES  ABOUT  HOME. 
By  Charles  C.  Abbott.     i2mo.    Cloth,  $1.50. 

"The  home  about  which  Dr.  Abbott  rambles  is  clearly  the  haunt  of  fowl  and  fish, 
of  animal  and  insect  life;  and  it  is  of  the  habits  and  nature  of  these  that  he  discourses 
pleasantly  in  this  book.  Summer  and  winter,  morning  and  evening,  he  has  been  in 
the  open  air  all  the  time  on  the  alert  for  some  new  revelation  of  instinct,  or  feeling, 
or  character  on  the  part  of  his  neighbor  creatures.  Most  that  he  sees  and  hears  he 
reports  agreeably  to  us,  as  it  was  no  doubt  delightful  to  himself  Books  like  this, 
which  are  free  from  all  the  technicalities  of  science,  but  yet  lack  little  that  has  scien- 
tific value,  are  well  suited  to  the  reading  of  the  young.  Their  atmosphere  is  a  healthy 
one  for  boys  in  particular  to  breathe." — Bostoti  Transcript. 


r\A  YS    O  UT    OF   DOORS.      By  Charles  C.  Abbott, 
J-^  author  of   "A  Naturalist's    Rambles   about   Home."      i2mo. 
Cloth,  $1.50. 

"  Dr.  Abbott  is  no  closet-bred  student.  He  gets  his  inspiration  firom  actual  con., 
tact  with  nature,  and  he  is  continually  discovering  analogies  that  escape  the  less  sym- 
pathetic  observer.  Dr.  Abbott  is  not  only  a  clear-eyed  observer  and  a  sound  philoso- 
pher; he  is  an  admirable  writer  as  well."— 3"/^^  Beacon,  Boston. 

"  '  Days  out  of  Doors '  is  a  series  of  sketches  of  animal  life  by  Charles  C.  Abbott, 
a  naturalist  whose  graceful  writings  have  entertained  and  instructed  the  public  before 
now.  The  essays  and  narratives  in  this  book  are  grouped  in  twelve  chapters,  named 
after  the  months  of  the  year.  Under  'January'  the  author  talks  of  squirrels,  musk- 
rats,  water-snakes,  and  the  predatory  animals  that  withstand  the  rigjor  of  winter: 
under  '  February'  of  frogs  and  herons,  crows  and  blackbirds;  under  '  March'  of  gulls 
and  fishes  and  foxy  sparrows,  and  so  on  appropriately,  instructively,  and  divertingly 
through  the  whole  twelve." — The  New  York  Sun. 


T 


'HE  PLAYTIME  NATURALIST.  By  Dr.  J.  E. 
Taylor,  F.  L.  S.,  editor  of  "  Science  Gossip."  With  366  Illus- 
trations.    i2mo.     Cloth,  $1.50. 


"The  Playtime  Naturalist"  relates  the  doings  and  holiday  rambles  and  adventures 
of  the  "Natural  History  Society"  of  Mugby  School.  "As  the  writer,"  says  the 
author  in  his  preface,  "  was  once  a  boy  himself,  and  vividly  remembers  the  never-to-be- 
forgotten  rambles  and  observations  of  the  objects  in  the  country,  he  thought  he  could 
not  do  better  than  enlist  this  younger  generation  in  the  same  loves  and  pleasures." 

"  The  work  contains  abundant  evidence  of  the  author's  knowledge  and  enthusiasm, 
and  any  boy  who  may  read  it  carefully  is  sure  to  find  something  to  attract  him.  The 
style  is  clear  and  lively,  and  there  are  many  good  illustrations." — Nature. 


New  York:  D.  APPLETON  &  CO.,  r,  3,  &  5  Bond  Street. 


T 


D.  APPLETON  &   CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 

'HE  REAR-GUARD  OF  THE  REVOLUTION. 
By  James  R.  Gilmore  (Edmund  Kirke).  With  Portrait  of 
John  Sevier,  and  Map.     l2mo.     Cloth,  $1.50. 

"  The  Rear-Guard  of  the  Revolution  "  is  a  narrative  of  the  adventures  of  the 
pioneers  that  first  crossed  the  Alleghanies  and  settled  in  what  is  now  Tennessee,  under 
the  leadership  of  two  remarkable  men,  James  Robertson  and  John  Sevier.  The  title 
of  the  book  is  derived  from  the  fact  that  a  body  of  hardy  volunteers,  under  the  leader- 
ship of  Sevier,  crossed  the  mountains,  and  by  their  timely  arrival  secured  the  defeat 
of  the  British  army  at  King's  Mountain. 


7 


OHN  SEVIER  AS  A  COMMONWEALTH- 
BUILDER.  A  Sequel  to  "The  Rear-Guard  of  the  Revo- 
lution." By  JAmes  R.  Gilmore  (Edmund  Kirke).  i2mo. 
Cloth,  $1.50. 


John  Sevier  was  among  the  pioneers  who  settled  the  region  in  Eastern  Tennessee. 
He  was  the  founder  of  the  State  of  Franklin,  which  afterward  became  Tennessee,  and 
was  the  first  Governor  of  the  State.  His  innumerable  battles  with  the  Indians,  his  re- 
markable exploits,  his  address  and  genius  for  leadership,  render  his  career  one  of  the 
most  thrilling  and  interesting  on  record. 

n^HE     ADVANCE-GUARD     OF     WESTERN 

J-        CIVILIZA  TIOM.     By  James  R.  Gilmore  (Edmund  Kirke). 

With  Map,  and  Portrait  of  James  Robertson.  i2mo.  Cloth,  $1.50. 

This  work  is  in  a  measure  a  continuation  of  the  thrilling  story  told  by  the  author  in 
his  two  preceding  volumes,  "The  Rear-Guard  of  the  Revolution"  and  "John  Sevier 
as  a  Commonwealth-Euildcr."  The  three  volumes  together  cover,  says  the  author 
in  his  preface,  "a  neglected  period  of  American  history,  and  they  disclose  facts  well 
worthy  the  attention  of  historians — namely,  that  these  Western  men  turned  the  tide 
of  the  American  Revolution,  and  subsequently  saved  the  newly-formed  Union  from 
disruption,  and  thereby  made  possible  our  present  great  republic." 


T 


HE  TWO  SPIES:  Nathan  Hale  qnd  John  Andr^. 
By  Benson  J.  Lossing,  I.L.  D.  Illustrated  with  Pen-and-ink 
Sketches.  Containing  also  Anna  Seward's  "  Monody  on  Major 
Andre."     Square  8vo.     Cloth,  gilt  top,  $2.00. 

Illustrated  by  nearly  thirty  engravings  of  portraits,  buildings,  sketches  by  Andrf, 
etc.  Contains  also  the  full  text  and  original  notes  of  the  famous  "  Monody  on  M.njot 
Andr£,"  written  by  lils  friend  Anna  Seward,  wiih  a  portrait  and  biographical  sketch 
of  Miss  Seward,  and  letters  to  her  by  M^or  Andr£. 


New  York :  D.  APPLETON  &  CO.,  i,  3.  &  5  Bond  Street. 


D.  APPLETON  &  CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


n^HE  HIS  TOR  Y  OF  ANCIENT  CIVIIIZA  TION. 

JL  a  Hand-book  based  upon  M.  Gustave  Ducoudray's  "  Histoire 
Sommaire  de  la  Civilisation."  Edited  by  the  Rev.  J.  Ver- 
SCHOYLE,  M.  A.  With  numerous  Illustrations.  Large  i2mo. 
Cloth,  $1.75. 

"With  M.  Ducoudray's  work  as  a  basis,  many  additions  having  been  made,  derived 
from  special  writers,  Mr.  Verschoyle  has  produced  an  excellent  work,  which  gives  a 
comprehensive  view  of  early  civilization.  ...  As  to  the  world  of  the  past,  the  volume 
under  notice  treats  of  Egypt,  Assyria,  the  Far  East,  of  Greece  and  Rome  in  the  most 
comprehensive  manner.  It  is  not  the  arts  alone  which  are  fully  illustrated,  but  the 
literature,  laws,  manners,  and  customs,  the  beliefs  of  all  these  countries  are  contrasted. 
If  the  book  gave  alone  the  history  of  the  monuments  of  the  past  it  would  be  valuable, 
but  it  is  its  all-around  character  which  renders  it  so  useful.  A  great  many  volumes 
have  been  produced  treating  of  a  past  civilization,  but  we  have  seen  none  which  in  the 
same  space  gives  such  varied  information."— 7"/^^  New  York  Times. 

GREAT  LEADERS:  Historic  Portraits  from  the 
Great  Historians.  Selected,  with  Notes  and  Brief  Biographical 
Sketches,  by  G.  T.  Ferris.  With  sixteen  engraved  Portraits. 
i2mo.     Cloth,  $1.75- 

The  Historic  Portraits  of  this  work  are  eighty  in  number,  drawn  from  the  writings 
of  Plutarch,  Grote,  Gibbon,  Curtius,  Mommsen,  Froude,  Hume,  Macaulay, 
Lecky,  Green,  Thiers,  Taine,  Prescott,  Motley,  and  other  historians.  The  sub- 
jects extend  from  Themistocles  to  Wellington. 

"  Every  one  perusing  the  pages  of  the  historians  must  have  been  impressed  with 
the  graphic  and  singularly  penetrative  character  of  many  of  the  sketches  of  the  distin- 
guished persons  whose  doings  form  the  staple  of  history.  These  pen-portraits  often 
stand  out  from  the  narrative  with  luminous  and  vivid  effect,  the  writers  seeming  to  have 
concentrated  upon  them  all  their  powers  of  penetration  and  all  their  skill  in  graphic 
delineation.  Few  things  in  literature  are  marked  by  analysis  so  close,  discernment  so 
keen,  or  effects  so  brilliant  and  dramatic." — From  tite  Pre/ace. 


L 


IFE  OF  THE  GREEKS  AND  ROMANS,  de- 
scribed from  Ancient  Monuments.  By  E.  Guhl  and  W. 
KONER.  Translated  from  the  third  German  edition  by  F. 
HUEFFER.     With  543  Illustrations.     8vo.     Cloth,  $2.50. 

"  The  result  of  careful  and  unwearied  research  in  every  nook  and  cranny  of  ancient 
learning.  Nowhere  else  can  the  student  find  so  many  facts  in  illustration  of  Greek 
and  Roman  methods  and  manners."— Z>r.  C.  K.  Adams's  Manual  0/  Historical 
Literature.     ^ 

New  York  :  D.  APPLETON  &  CO.,  i,  3>  &  5  Bond  Street 


ttov 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


MOV  2 1  193^ 
DEC  1 0  1934 

-AY  ii 


u  i-w- 


4L      '^N  2a 


"SL      JAI^' 14  19715 

JAN    9  i.q?'^ 


URi, 


\m 


"  ^ 


0(»^54^^|:-uiri 


OCT  16 


Form  L-9-15m-7,'32 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  403  439    3 


\t. 


-^a* 


—2, . 


oann 


THE 


atmmmtmmtmm 


SCIENTIFIC  SERIES 

y  n^nlnllllllllt^^}^j^j^^n^|llr^^l|||a^jH>^lyf^Bjly^^T^■■^^■  iiniii^||n«a>nja>w>&v|to-iii  ri wmt  im  iiiu 


^«>«4«tfM*MMa«lgM»««««*M«iMto. 


K» 


mmtmmmammmmmemmHimBamm 


